I have seen some commentary online from US fans that reckons this will be easier to watch for the rest of the world than in its home territory because it's being shown through Netflix everywhere other than the US?

I have seen some commentary online from US fans that reckons this will be easier to watch for the rest of the world than in its home territory because it's being shown through Netflix everywhere other than the US?

Pretty much. The pilot will air on CBS in the US, with subsequent episodes streaming exclusively on CBS All Access, which is $5.99 a month. I suppose this is poetic justic for all the times we get the goods on Netflix in the States. I don't really care to sign up for yet another streaming service, so the pilot better impress.

Trivia note, the Discovery is very similar to Ralph McQuarrie's concept art for the Enterprise in the abortive Star Trek - Phase II TV series that was in pre-production in the mid-1970s.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the design, which looks like a cheap kit bash of the original Enterprise and the Klingon D7. I suspect that the intent was to create a design that looks like an evolutionary mid-point between the designs of the Enterprise NX-01 and the Constitution-class but I'm not sure how well they did to that end.

Yeah, its pretty concerning. Apparently its extremely early and was rushed out... though I'd honestly prefer them to have waited and released something that looks finished so they don't accidentally build negative buzz before the show comes out!

And per the CGI....remember the promos for Ronald D Moore's BSG? Laser guns and dodgy as heck. They ramped it up for the series start (and then ramped it up during the seasons). So I'm not too worried.

Hmm... The Battle of Izar (which ended the Second Federation-Klingon War) maybe? Was that why they were trying to surpress Anaxar, because it was treading the same ground that Discovery was going to tread?

Other events in this time period:* USS Faragut nearly destroyed by the Cloud Creature;* Duotronic computing becomes standard across the Federation, elevating Dr Richard Daystrom to living legend status and possibly leading to his own gradual descent into insanity;* Governor Kodos of Tarsus IV orders the execution of half his colony's population due to a fungal boom destroying the colony's food supplies.

My guess is that it's going to be the Tarsus IV massacre, in which case we'll meet Cadets Kirk, Leighton and Riley when the Discovery leads the relief efforts.

Hmm... The Battle of Izar (which ended the Second Federation-Klingon War) maybe? Was that why they were trying to surpress Anaxar, because it was treading the same ground that Discovery was going to tread?

Other events in this time period:* USS Faragut nearly destroyed by the Cloud Creature;* Duotronic computing becomes standard across the Federation, elevating Dr Richard Daystrom to living legend status and possibly leading to his own gradual descent into insanity;* Governor Kodos of Tarsus IV orders the execution of half his colony's population due to a fungal boom destroying the colony's food supplies.

My guess is that it's going to be the Tarsus IV massacre, in which case we'll meet Cadets Kirk, Leighton and Riley when the Discovery leads the relief efforts.

[edit]Corrected name of one of the Tarsus trio

The problem with the Tarsus IV theory is that happened about 20 years before "The Conscience of the King" story, not 10 years.

I think you're got it right with the Anaxar theory. The show may have something to do with Garth and the fan film Anaxar gets too close to it.

Hmm... The Battle of Izar (which ended the Second Federation-Klingon War) maybe? Was that why they were trying to surpress Anaxar, because it was treading the same ground that Discovery was going to tread?

Other events in this time period:* USS Faragut nearly destroyed by the Cloud Creature;* Duotronic computing becomes standard across the Federation, elevating Dr Richard Daystrom to living legend status and possibly leading to his own gradual descent into insanity;* Governor Kodos of Tarsus IV orders the execution of half his colony's population due to a fungal boom destroying the colony's food supplies.

My guess is that it's going to be the Tarsus IV massacre, in which case we'll meet Cadets Kirk, Leighton and Riley when the Discovery leads the relief efforts.

[edit]Corrected name of one of the Tarsus trio

I doubt it's the tale of Kodos the Executioner, as this doesn't seem that it would be a 13-chapter novel primarily involving a Federation starship. This would be a story primarily located on/in the Tarsus IV colony itself, I would think, and rather like the middle part of a trilogy, would not satisfyingly wrap up the storyline. The resolution of the main dramatic conflict would not happen until the events in "The Conscience of the King."

Good long-form television -- i.e., an episodic telling of a single story arc, which is what Fuller says Discovery will be -- establishes an ongoing source of dramatic tension that is not resolved until the climax of the story arc. To me, for such a story arc, I think you need an antagonist that can continue on for the entire arc, and I don't see Kodos doing that. At the best, you would have thirteen separate Star Trek episodes, each with a five- to ten-minute teaser of the climax that would end up being a laughable "meanwhile, back at Hell Colony with little Jimmy Kirk and his BFF, Kevin Riley" which would not be sufficient to maintain dramatic tension over 13 episodes.

I would have to believe it will deal with the Klingon wars. Placing the series 10 years prior to TOS means it can't be the Romulan wars, since in TOS it was definitely determined that the Romulans had pulled back and gone into hiding (so to speak) something like 80 years prior to the beginning of the original series. So, almost definitely not that.

Dealing with the last of the Klingon wars prior to the beginning of TOS provides a continuing dramatic tension, provides an antagonist (the Klingon empire) that can be reliably counted upon to deliver a "bad guy" (one or more) every week, and lets you manage a story arc over the 13 episodes. It's also, as speculated, a very good reason why the Axanar fan project might have been shut down so hard, if this new offering deals with the same timeframe and wants to establish a different sequence of events surrounding that era within the "Star Trek Prime Universe" history. It doesn't have to deal with the Battle of Axanar to still be dealing with the Klingon Wars, after all.

As with any dramatic presentation of any type, though, it will all come down to the writing. Good writing can lift you up over bad acting, but the reverse is nearly impossible. Fuller does have experience working in the Prime Universe, so maybe the writing will shine through -- but, as with a lot of things, I have to say I'll believe it when I see it.

Kudos, though, to CBS for taking a stand and insisting that a new Star Trek television offering will not go down the abomination of the timeline Abrams came up with. That series of movies should be considered completely outside of Trek, and just one guy's none-too-successful pastiche -- a pastiche that literally does everything it can to denigrate what went before, and replace it with complete drek. Sigh.

A key element about Axanar is the production company starting merchandising Axanar. The Powers That Be looked the other way on fan material if it didn't upset the fans much and it was non-profit. The production company was privately given a chance to change and didn't. Hence the lawyers and all the good, bad, and the ugly fan fiction has been handcuffed. That may change after the lawsuit because the combo of 50th Anniversary and Lawsuit was not in the PR plans.

Since Kirk's Stiles said he had a relative in the Romulan wars 100 years before, it's clearly not that person nor the one from Star Trek 3, as that spelling is Styles. Like Smith and Smyth in difference :)

Nope, definitely not those. He had several Stiles ancestors in Star Fleet. If the tradition continued in his family, I think the age could be right that it could be his mother. I guess we will have to wait until May to find out now.

We know that the events of Balance of Terror were the first contact with the Romulans in a generation, so it isn't beyond possibility that the Discovery might run into them. If so, I do hope that they remember that no-one knew what they looked like in 2266, so there can be no visual contact with them during these events.

We know that the events of Balance of Terror were the first contact with the Romulans in a generation, so it isn't beyond possibility that the Discovery might run into them. If so, I do hope that they remember that no-one knew what they looked like in 2266, so there can be no visual contact with them during these events.

Star Trek canon history is just a convoluted mess, so they are better off ignoring minutia like that and just doing their best to create good drama.

We know that the events of Balance of Terror were the first contact with the Romulans in a generation, so it isn't beyond possibility that the Discovery might run into them. If so, I do hope that they remember that no-one knew what they looked like in 2266, so there can be no visual contact with them during these events.

Star Trek canon history is just a convoluted mess, so they are better off ignoring minutia like that and just doing their best to create good drama.

I wouldn't call it a convoluted mess. There are some contradictions, some of which are significant. But they have paid attention to canon, just not been rigidly adherent to it. And I think there are easy ways to explain away some of the contradictions. They could do the same with the Romulans--some humans could see the Romulans, but it might not get reported or recorded, so Kirk isn't aware of it later. Ditto for the new look Klingons. Maybe they are a racial offshoot or something.

Although my heart belongs to the original series, I have a lot of respect for Deep Space 9, which I think explored a lot of themes and subjects where the other Trek series were not bold enough to go. One of the series writers is working on a documentary about Deep Space 9 and is conducting an Indiegogo campaign to raise money to produce it:

They already achieved their initial goal and their stretch goal. I think this could be interesting, and they have almost all the original cast involved (except for Avery Brooks, aka Captain Sisko, who is a bit of an... outlier). So check it out and pitch in if you support it.

"While the Star Trek series was originally slated to be released in the first month of 2017, the premiere date was then moved to May with sources later telling The Hollywood Reporter that the release had been pushed back indefinitely. "

I can't see the slip going further than the start of the fall season; further than that and I'd expect to start seeing producers' and directors' heads tumbling through the lot on their way to the exit gate onto Washout Boulevard.

Although my heart belongs to the original series, I have a lot of respect for Deep Space 9, which I think explored a lot of themes and subjects where the other Trek series were not bold enough to go. One of the series writers is working on a documentary about Deep Space 9 and is conducting an Indiegogo campaign to raise money to produce it:

They already achieved their initial goal and their stretch goal. I think this could be interesting, and they have almost all the original cast involved (except for Avery Brooks, aka Captain Sisko, who is a bit of an... outlier). So check it out and pitch in if you support it.

What they left behind? Nice reference to the series finale. Although, that episode was tragic in its disappointment. Everyone was really just going through the motions at that point. It could have gone out better than that.

What about Avery Brooks is an outlier?

None of the cast seem to have done particularly well since. Nana Visitor has had a few roles, particularly voice acting. Rene Auberjonois has also had a few things. Colm Meaney has been fine. He was in Stargate Atlantis and so was Nicole deBoer. Alexander Siddig was in Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven. Not heard a peep from Terry Farrell. Nor Cirroc Lofton, though we never heard much from him on the show either.

He is apparently rather eccentric. (That's a nice way to say that he's weird.) Some actors never want to be associated with a role ever again, but with him it's apparently not arrogance but eccentricity.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: zack on 05/17/2017 09:56 PM

And the first trailer is finally out. Looks very nice. :)Non region-locked link:https://streamable.com/pmp54 (https://streamable.com/pmp54)

I am a HUGE Star Trek fan, but Discovery has left me very, very Meh. I just don't buy it. Supposed to be 10 years before Kirk and Spock and exist in the "Prime Universe", but the ship shown looks more advanced than Picards Enterprise. The uniforms are totally wrong, they look like a cross between Babylon V and Galaxy Quest. And sorry to say it, but, THOSE ARE NOT KLINGONS! They look like the Insectoids from Enterprise. A Starfleet officer who's alien race bases it's entire existence on a quality of sensing impending death? No, just no. They fired the only guy working on this show that knew what Star Trek was supposed to be. And of course the kicker is. In the US the only way to watch this show is to subscribe to another streaming service, except this one makes you pay AND watch commercials.

This is me but, apart from the external configuration of the Discovery, the whole feel of the show as seen in the trailer is more Babylon 5 in its aesthetic. Even the apparent plot has a lot more of Babylon 5's feel than Star Trek.

Cross-Posted from a fan forum where I'm a member:I'm increasingly wondering if each separate 'incarnation' of Trek (the original series & movies 1-6, the four 'Next Generation-era' shows & movies 7-9, the Abramsverse and now 'Discovery') should be considered parallel continuities that are similar but not identical and do not necessarily have the same histories and even the same physical laws in the background.

I'm not automatically opposed to this concept in the slightest. I would even argue that there is some basis for this in the official materials. For example, in The Original Series, warp factors were the cube root of the vessel's velocity multiplier of the speed of light. In The Next Generation, it was altered to a logarithmic scale that reached infinity at Warp 10 and 'Enterprise' added a new modifier where certain subspace conditions could allow a starship to travel far faster than their notional warp speed and that there were 'express routes' between some major systems like Sol and Q'ono'S (something that some writers, most notably William Shatner's ghostwriter, have suggested is artificial and possibly the work of the Next Generation-era's ancient God-species/progenitors of all intelligent life, the Preservers... but I digress). Simon Pegg (who ended up effectively writing 'Star Trek: Beyond') has also explicitly stated that his understanding is that the Abramsverse is a parallel universe rather than a divergent timeline.

As I said, there's no reason why this couldn't work and I'm happy enough with it as a meta-explanation. However, I'd have been grateful if this were clearly stated somehow. Spock could have mentioned it in ST2009 and, if they are doing the interdimensional thing in Discovery, it wouldn't be hard to drop it in (maybe have one of the Discovery's scans of the Swirly Space Anomaly Thingy show the Enterprise under Captain Pike).

I've heard this complaint numerous times since the trailer (and earlier promotional stills) and I still don't get it.The Klingons' appearance has already changed radically once in Star Trek's history (between the original series and Star Trek: The Motion Picture), and Worf's appearance changed significantly throughout his ten-year run on Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. If you're expecting Klingons of this series to look like they did in the 1960s, that's unrealistic. No show would get away with that "Fu Manchu" look today.

And anyway, all humans do not look alike. Why do you expect all Klingons to look alike?

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Bynaus on 05/20/2017 02:07 PM

To me, the "new Klingons" look more or less like the old ones (plenty of variety there too), except for the hairstyle. Add the long black hairs from the TNG/DS9/VOY era again, and you would probably recognize them as Klingons. A temporary fad? Anyway, I am ready to give the series the benefit of the doubt and watch the first seaaon.

To me, the "new Klingons" look more or less like the old ones (plenty of variety there too), except for the hairstyle. Add the long black hairs from the TNG/DS9/VOY era again, and you would probably recognize them as Klingons. A temporary fad? Anyway, I am ready to give the series the benefit of the doubt and watch the first seaaon.

I think there is a significant difference in the look, and I don't really like it. However, it is the kind of thing that could be explained away in dialogue by someone mentioning that Klingons have multiple races and many of them are isolated. They could solve that one easily.

I don't know if I could get into this series, but I'll give the pilot a chance. Looks a little too dark (mood, warlike) compared to the Star Trek original series, Next Gen, etc but that might just be the trailer. I'd hoped that Discovery would be set in a post TNG/DS9 future, that would be more interesting to me than a prequel, but again, I'll watch and give at least the pilot a chance.

Certainly the mood of the show is going to be important. What is the show about? By that, I mean, what is the theme? Is it about exploration and discovery? Is it about a positive vision of the future? Or is it going to be dark and grim and about conflict?

One of the most important things that made Star Trek unique was its positive view of the future:

Last year's presidential campaign had the darkest, most negative tone ever in America. Which, for at least a segment of the population, continues unabated. Don't pretend to understand it myself, but ...

What makes you think there's any desire for a positive view of the future, in the present? They all seem to want to "go to hell" right now.

I think you are confusing the polarities here--just because people believe that the current situation is very bad, and/or believe that things are going to get worse, does not mean that people in general do not wish for things to get better. Apocalyptic predictions actually have less appeal than utopian ones.

One of the most important things that made Star Trek unique was its positive view of the future

Last year's presidential campaign had the darkest, most negative tone ever in America. Which, for at least a segment of the population, continues unabated. Don't pretend to understand it myself, but ...

What makes you think there's any desire for a positive view of the future, in the present? They all seem to want to "go to hell" right now.

Against this backdrop, original series Star Trek presented a future where we had learned to work out our problems. They weren't gone, as noted in several of the episodes, but humanity was showing the ability to move through and beyond them.

At times when things are the most disheartening, that is when messages of hope carry the most power.

Against this backdrop, original series Star Trek presented a future where we had learned to work out our problems.

Younger people (I'll say anybody born after 1985 or so) don't have any memory of the Cold War. It was common during the Cold War to believe that the entire planet could blow up. Viewed in those terms, today's problems are relatively small potatoes.

Certainly the mood of the show is going to be important. What is the show about? By that, I mean, what is the theme? Is it about exploration and discovery? Is it about a positive vision of the future? Or is it going to be dark and grim and about conflict?

One of the most important things that made Star Trek unique was its positive view of the future:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3133/1

Discovery will not be episodic, which will make it quite different from the rest of Trek (with the exception of DS9 maybe). I expect it to be more character and less "idea driven".

Given that Trek has been going downhill since TNG that may not be a bad choice.

Given that Trek has been going downhill since TNG that may not be a bad choice.

I've been watching Enterprise reruns lately, and I'm liking it a lot more than I remembered. I like it more than DSN and Voyager, and I think that some of its episodes rival the best of TNG. One of the reasons I didn't watch it as much when it was originally on TV was that the Columbia accident happened during its run, ruining science fiction for me for awhile. Enterprise also closely follow the 9/11 attacks, making it a tough time to watch such a show.

Trek was always "idea driven". The core of it, for me, was this idea that the entire human race had joined together (before striking out into the universe). Trek seemed to me centered on this one dream, and Enterprise included that idea frequently. Discovery won't be Star Trek if it ignores such ideals.

At the risk of sounding cynical, that action sequence in the trailer seems to say to me: "Because we have absolutely no idea why the ambush and destruction of the USS Kelvin was a huge creative mistake, we've decided to use a hastily-renamed version of the same scene it as the basis of our next series!"

I just watched the premiere. It has possibilities. The special effects are first rate. The ship looks more advanced than anything from the series that are set farther into the future. The dialog does get annoying at times. I guess the second episode is already available on CBS all access. Probably not a spoiler but it does get immediately involved with the Klingons. Not to give anything away, but some of the behavior of some of the characters doesn't seem that realistic. I guess I just need to decide if I want to pay for another entertainment venue - CBS All Access to see the rest of it.

I liked more than I disliked about it. I actually liked the substance of the show more than the style--too many damned lens flares, and the camera did not need to move around the characters all the time. But the story was pretty good. I thought the crew seemed a bit too casual.

From what we've seen (and I'm not really giving away spoilers), the Klingons have a reason to do what they are doing. And it creates an interesting conundrum for our protagonist.

I'll have to look into CBS All Access. Not sure that I want to pay more for TV, but this has potential.

I just looked at the options for CBS All access. They have a free trial week where you can see the second episode, but you have to pick a plan and give them a credit card number. I think you have to cancel within the week or the plan starts. $5.99 / mo with what they call limited commercials and $9.99 /mo for commercial free.

Saw E1 and E2 tonight....enjoyed it...great effects but more importantly the story line looks like it's got legs...interesting to see things from both the Klingon and Federation perspectives...acting was good as well.

E1 was a tad uneven, pilot-itis, but I totally buy Michelle Yeoh as a Captain and Sonequa Martin-Green as her ballsy XO. Off to CBS All Access for the rest of it....

Bring on the "Vulcan hello"!

The part I didn't like was the XO's method of setting a course of action towards the end of E1. Especially with someone raised by Vulcans, I didn't buy it. Hopefully the writers will get better at keeping people within more realistic behavior.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Nomadd on 09/25/2017 03:24 AM

Too bright and colorful. Looks like a cartoon. If I didn't have a disturbingly old crush on Michelle Yeoh, I probably wouldn't keep watching.

They didn't develop the characters. We know very little about them. Too dark for a time between the show Enterprise and Captain Archer, and Kirk. They are trying to throw in race with the Klingon albino, also more women leaders instead of a balance of both sexes. Hope it don't get too political. I grew up in the late 50's and 60's. We had far more problems to worry about back then. Stuff people are complaining about today is small potatoes. Kind of stupid.

I just looked at the options for CBS All access. They have a free trial week where you can see the second episode, but you have to pick a plan and give them a credit card number. I think you have to cancel within the week or the plan starts. $5.99 / mo with what they call limited commercials and $9.99 /mo for commercial free.

Thinking about this, it's only 10 episodes, right? That means paying them either $12 or $20, then canceling. Not a bad deal for the season. You would pay more for a DVD. People are only really objecting because of the belief that CBS should be free, and they're already paying for some other streaming service. But it's a limited cost, not a lifetime commitment.

After seeing episode 1 and 2 the jury is still out. I might have to re-watch them again get a better sense as I was triple screening it at the time and had to look up at the Klingon dialogue to read it and I may have missed some bits. I wonder if it be so for the entire series. I don't want to spoil it for those who have only seen episode 1...

Well, I watched the broadcast episode. I won't be paying to watch it on CBS All Access and I especially won't be giving them a credit card number so I can watch the free week only to have to fight with their customer service to cancel before they bill me.

I did have some thoughts regarding the show:

I was more than a little bugged by Michael's attempt to usurp command. They tried to explain it a bit with her background and the comm with Sarek, but all they really did was muddy the waters thoroughly. The event felt like it came almost completely out of left field. Her arguing for firing first I can completely understand. Her assaulting her commander (and friend) of 7 years in order to override the decision to follow the rules and regulations to which Michael herself swore an oath at commissioning to uphold? Unacceptable without a LOT more backup.

I am willing to accept the anachronistic visual and technological elements in a supposed prequel, mainly due to Trek having long established the existence of alternate timelines to the 'primary'. But it in no way, shape, or form conforms to the established primary timeline either visually or technologically.

Why the STAR WARS hyperdrive arrivals??? Where's the standard (Since ST:TNG) 'Optic Boom' of warp drive??? This was even different from the J.J.Abrams BSG Jump Warp arrivals....

If they are insisting that this is 'prime universe' then it is completely anachronistic, because we know exactly what the leading edge of Federation Technology looks like 10 years prior to the original series. We were shown it in the original series when they cut in 'The Cage' (original pilot) to make 'The Menagerie' where Spock hijacks the ENTERPRISE to take Commodore Pike back to Talos IV.

Star Trek: ENTERPRISE did an excellent job of making the Original Series sets look fresh and functional with their Mirror Universe episodes with the USS DEFIANT. The producers could have embraced that look, but chose not to. Thus calling this 'prime universe' is going to honk off a lot of long-time fans.

Another thing that bugged me. If this is a prequel, what is the ENTERPRISE 'unit patch' doing on the SHENZHOU crew uniforms? The original series clearly had each ship having its own left chest unit patch. Per the established history, the ENTERPRISE's was adopted fleet wide AFTER the 5 year mission due to its 'fame'.

My gut feeling is that Discovery is 'stylistically' a bridge between Star Trek: ENTERPRISE and the Abrams reboot.

1) The design of the uniforms is a growth from the ENTERPRISE uniforms2) The design of the SHENZHOU internally and externally much more closely reflects ENTERPRISE3) The size of the SHENZHOU internal spaces reflects the Abrams reboot.4) The bridge of the SHENZHOU is on the BOTTOM of the saucer with a huge front window. (Abrams reboot style)

And my final question:

Sorry... but the Trek folks KNOW that (and how) their titles get abbreviated.

Well, I watched the broadcast episode. I won't be paying to watch it on CBS All Access and I especially won't be giving them a credit card number so I can watch the free week only to have to fight with their customer service to cancel before they bill me.

I did have some thoughts regarding the show:

I was more than a little bugged by Michael's attempt to usurp command. They tried to explain it a bit with her background and the comm with Sarek, but all they really did was muddy the waters thoroughly. The event felt like it came almost completely out of left field. Her arguing for firing first I can completely understand. Her assaulting her commander (and friend) of 7 years in order to override the decision to follow the rules and regulations to which Michael herself swore an oath at commissioning to uphold? Unacceptable without a LOT more backup.

I am willing to accept the anachronistic visual and technological elements in a supposed prequel, mainly due to Trek having long established the existence of alternate timelines to the 'primary'. But it in no way, shape, or form conforms to the established primary timeline either visually or technologically.

Why the STAR WARS hyperdrive arrivals??? Where's the standard (Since ST:TNG) 'Optic Boom' of warp drive??? This was even different from the J.J.Abrams BSG Jump Warp arrivals....

If they are insisting that this is 'prime universe' then it is completely anachronistic, because we know exactly what the leading edge of Federation Technology looks like 10 years prior to the original series. We were shown it in the original series when they cut in 'The Cage' (original pilot) to make 'The Menagerie' where Spock hijacks the ENTERPRISE to take Commodore Pike back to Talos IV.

Star Trek: ENTERPRISE did an excellent job of making the Original Series sets look fresh and functional with their Mirror Universe episodes with the USS DEFIANT. The producers could have embraced that look, but chose not to. Thus calling this 'prime universe' is going to honk off a lot of long-time fans.

Another thing that bugged me. If this is a prequel, what is the ENTERPRISE 'unit patch' doing on the SHEN-JO crew uniforms? The original series clearly had each ship having its own left chest unit patch. Per the established history, the ENTERPRISE's was adopted fleet wide AFTER the 5 year mission due to its 'fame'.

My gut feeling is that Discovery is 'stylistically' a bridge between Star Trek: ENTERPRISE and the Abrams reboot.

1) The design of the uniforms is a growth from the ENTERPRISE uniforms2) The design of the SHEN-JO internally and externally much more closely reflects ENTERPRISE3) The size of the SHEN-JO internal spaces reflects the Abrams reboot.4) The bridge of the SHEN-JO is on the BOTTOM of the saucer with a huge front window. (Abrams reboot style)

And my final question:

Sorry... but the Trek folks KNOW that (and how) their titles get abbreviated.

Star Trek Discovery

STD

How the HECK did this one get by front office? :o

Because perhaps and sadly the fact that Gene is no longer with us R.I.P.

They didn't develop the characters. We know very little about them. Too dark for a time between the show Enterprise and Captain Archer, and Kirk. They are trying to throw in race with the Klingon albino, also more women leaders instead of a balance of both sexes. Hope it don't get too political. I grew up in the late 50's and 60's. We had far more problems to worry about back then. Stuff people are complaining about today is small potatoes. Kind of stupid.

Other's have pointed out that TOS (and the ST universe) is intentionally political.

I'll disagree about Discovery's the gender mix. The Klingon leader and the Admiral were male. The balance of leaders by gender was 50/50 and the highest ranking leader introduced was male.

I'm not against women or other people. THEY tried to make an issue with the dark and light Klingon, not me. They should let it go. Don't mention race. I just didn't see a lot of men or human men major characters on the earth ship, mostly women and aliens. I thought the time frame was right after Enterprise, so there wouldn't be as many aliens on board unless they were Vulcans. We just had not discovered as many aliens by then.

The new Star Trek first movie developed the characters. The only character they developed was the first officer. I also didn't like the way the first officer disrespected the captain in front of the crew. To much disrespect today.

I grew up in the 1960's, there were REAL issues then, today just small potatoes and localized. I have a black grand daughter, and Perto Rican cousins. Had no problem with Voyager series, nor Deep Space 9. I just thought the series needed a little more balance and more actual "Discovery" not so dark and immediately having enemies.

Watched Ep1 & 2 (bought annual pass for CBS All Access). Yes, I'm a Trek fan-boy and really excited about the show. First, it is refreshing to see a long-format plot-line for Star Trek. This is like Babylon 5, where characters will develop and stories strengthen as the series goes on. Second, the acting is pretty good (though I thought all the Klingon speech was stilted). Third, the special effects were top-notch. CBS is treating this show seriously, it is not an Abrams bam-bam-flash-formula plot a 3rd grader can write nor a Fan-service hentai piece. For Trek, it is being true to Gene's ideals and the Technology has been updated because it has been a long time since Voyager aired!

For those who won't pay CBS All Access, I'd say you're missing out if you are a Trek fan.

I'm not against women or other people. THEY tried to make an issue with the dark and light Klingon, not me. They should let it go. Don't mention race. I just didn't see a lot of men or human men major characters on the earth ship, mostly women and aliens. I thought the time frame was right after Enterprise, so there wouldn't be as many aliens on board unless they were Vulcans. We just had not discovered as many aliens by then.

No Discovery is set only 10 or so years before TOS, so the better part of a century after ENT, and by the end of that you had Starfleet working with several of the founding members (the mentioned Tellerites, Andorians for example)

Watched Ep1 & 2 (bought annual pass for CBS All Access). Yes, I'm a Trek fan-boy and really excited about the show. First, it is refreshing to see a long-format plot-line for Star Trek. This is like Babylon 5, where characters will develop and stories strengthen as the series goes on. Second, the acting is pretty good (though I thought all the Klingon speech was stilted). Third, the special effects were top-notch. CBS is treating this show seriously, it is not an Abrams bam-bam-flash-formula plot a 3rd grader can write nor a Fan-service hentai piece. For Trek, it is being true to Gene's ideals and the Technology has been updated because it has been a long time since Voyager aired!

For those who won't pay CBS All Access, I'd say you're missing out if you are a Trek fan.

Honestly would have to disagree with you as a Trek Fan, didn't find anything major (and the main protagonist I could do without), frankly I would have been more interested in seeing the 7 years with Yeoh as Captain rather than what we are now getting, waste of a great actress

And I'm glad the ship models don't look like Jeffries made them in the 60's. I like the original shows and most of the others.

Spaceship geeks are wigging out on this stuff.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Graham on 09/25/2017 11:01 PM

It wasn't Star Trek, it was JJ Trek. I'm holding out hope that we will see traditional Trek in the future, with creative problem solving, interesting characters, and just generally less shooting and lasers. There was a reason that DS9 didn't just start with the Dominion War, and even then was still nuanced enough to avoid having the entire plot of each episode revolving around phasers and photon torpedoes.

I'm not against women or other people. THEY tried to make an issue with the dark and light Klingon, not me. They should let it go. Don't mention race. I just didn't see a lot of men or human men major characters on the earth ship, mostly women and aliens.

Er, you were the one who objected to the race and the women. If you don't like franchises with other races and girls, then try Star Wars...

Oh, wait...

Well, I guess you're outta luck. You'll either have to live with it or stare in the mirror.

Thought the opening two episodes were pretty good. Though the opening scenes on that planet complete with the very clunky dialogue made for hard viewing. But once things got going it improved greatly, though the new Klingon designs were good they did rather get lost in the over busy sets of the Klingon warships. Main cast was OK but guessed Yeoh’s character wasn’t long for this world.

The technology is getting ludicrous now in that it stretches belief beyond breaking point that this could be set ten years before the original show, compounded by the fact that it has far more the look of the modern films than any of the past TV shows.

....The technology is getting ludicrous now in that it stretches belief beyond breaking point that this could be set ten years before the original show, compounded by the fact that it has far more the look of the modern films than any of the past TV shows.

You do understand they are trying to catch the attention of people that watch most of their video streamed on their smartphone/tablet.

You can not do a modern TV/Cable show about Space and the future without the look and feel of current show in it's genre.

Think of this streaming series as a reboot after the events of the Enterprise series for viewers born after the start of the 2001-2005 Enterprise series.

....The technology is getting ludicrous now in that it stretches belief beyond breaking point that this could be set ten years before the original show, compounded by the fact that it has far more the look of the modern films than any of the past TV shows.

You do understand they are trying to catch the attention of people that watch most of their video streamed on their smartphone/tablet.

You can not do a modern TV/Cable show about Space and the future without the look and feel of current show in it's genre.

Think of this streaming series as a reboot after the events of the Enterprise series for viewers born after the start of the 2001-2005 Enterprise series.

Yes that’s obvious. Therefore set it in a different universe, maybe the movie universe or another one entirely.

I wrote a non-spoiler review of 'Discovery' in The Orville thread. For some reason, I can't cut-and-paste the link into this one. So if no one minds; I'll cut and paste the text here:

** I've watched the first two episodes of Discovery and the first few of The Orville. In my experienced opinion (I've seen all 700-odd Trek episodes and all movies and read dozens of Trek novels) - at this stage; they are both showing more promise than the first Seasons of all the Star trek shows; except the original!!

The Orville has a hard road to hoe - because it is part parody and part tribute to Star Trek. If it were more of a comedy or more of a drama, maybe it would work better... I'm unsure. But since it is finding it's way I would at this stage describe it as slightly weak rather than awful (it isn't) then it may have room for improvement. Even 'Babylon 5' - my favourite 'Space Opera' show ever - was not deemed to be a classic until I think the intrigue of it's main story was well underway by mid-season 2 or thereabouts.

In this day and age of instant gratification - real or perceived - we just don't seem to have the patience to let a TV show find it's feet or grow an audience. I know network executives and now 'the customer' (us) demand an instant classic, must-see, or binge-watching nirvana. But we're rarely going to get that anymore and I for one will watch a show I'm interested in and if it fails to hold my interest by about mid-season; then I'll reassess my viewing priorities. I know life is too short to watch bad TV, movies or music. Demand high standards, by all means.

When I watch Star Trek, I always have high hopes if not high-expectations. I'm seasoned and cynical enough not to have a rose-tinted view of my favourite(ish) set of TV shows ever. My favourite Trek show was Deep Space Nine because of it's huge, ambitious story-telling arc that had noble but nonetheless flawed and complex characters. And it had a dash of comedy, too at times. I don't think it was the best 'Trek show' - but I think it often rivaled the best 'Next Generation' episodes for being the best television of it's era.

...Which brings me to 'Discovery'. First of all - it aint your Grandpa's Trek!! The first couple episodes make this abundantly clear. I mentioned a 'rose tinted' glasses view a couple paragraphs ago. The Original Series, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise were products of their time. Nobody is doing, or deliberately should make a modern space opera show, exactly the way they did in 1987, 1993, the late 1990s or the early 2000s. No one! I fully realized this when I saw the JJ Abrams Star Trek reboot films from 2009 onwards - those films I both like and dislike in roughly equal measure. That's because - I swear to you - I endeavour bloody hard not to be an old-school, rose-tinted, nostalgia wussy 'fanboy'. We have modern special effects, modern censorship standards, 'modern acting', writing and direction, for better or worse. Modern cameras and cinematography techniques...

'Discovery' will have to play out it's agenda and character development with great thought and care. As I said - it is not an old TV show; it is a new one. That doesn't mean, though that it can't have the 'spirit of Star Trek' running through it's veins. Good writing and 'good heart' can bring that online, in time. I for one wont damn it because it doesn't have Shatner, Stewart or Michael Dorn in it. Although it would be really good to see those characters one more time - I don't live for it. If the reboot franchise falls over; and they bring back the T.N.G. timeframe and universe movies with Captain Riker or Worf - I'd be delighted. There's no reason it couldn't be at least good, if not great. But as I said - I don't hold my breath for it. It is almost all in the writing. Science fiction TV and films will fail if the power and logic and heart of the story doesn't work. But Star Trek, along with other famous space operas, will only survive in the long run if it evolves and grows - not puts out pale, repetitive carbon copies of itself.

Apart from my slight confusion about the current remolding of the Klingon race in 'Discovery' - I think I see a real glimmer of hope that something could really grow up out of this show - despite my reservations about it being a slightly unnecessary prequel. TNG, DS9 and Voyager took until their third seasons to find their way and become decent television shows. I don't think 'Discovery' will need that long... :) **

It wasn't Star Trek, it was JJ Trek. I'm holding out hope that we will see traditional Trek in the future, with creative problem solving, interesting characters, and just generally less shooting and lasers. There was a reason that DS9 didn't just start with the Dominion War, and even then was still nuanced enough to avoid having the entire plot of each episode revolving around phasers and photon torpedoes.

Roddenberry is rolling in his grave.

The recent movies have definitely been heavy on the action and light on the promise of the Star Trek universe. But I'm much more optimistic about the show. Sure it starts with a traumatized human raised on Vulcan with a "kill them all and let Kahless sort-them out" attitude. But I thought they made it clear that is not the Federation's modus operandi.

I am hopeful it won't just be a shoot 'em up. Conflict can set the stage for addressing all sort of sticky ethical issues, expose the many facets of enemies and allies. After all, they need to exit this war in a way that leads to a society that sends Kirk galavanting all over the galaxy.

So while I wish that Discovery was more about discovery, I think the show has a shot at being interesting and ultimately optimistic.

Well... Sorry but I wasn't greatly impressed. There was a lot of interesting potential in the story and characters alike but, in the end, it fell flat.

First and above all else, I reject the notion that this is the best Trek pilot. Where No Man Has Gone Before, Emissary and Caretaker were all greatly superior. The big problems? The actors and actresses playing the Klingons seemed to be barely able to enunciate their lines. Most of the crew of the Shenzhou weren't that much better. The SFX, whilst impressive, mostly came out feeling not Trek. The 'Klingon' ships were something straight out of Warhammer 40,000 as were the 'Klingons' themselves. The script just had too many moments that breached my suspension of disbelief.

Most damning, I failed to really come to care for most of the characters and, from about 3/4 of the way through the first episode I wanted to relieve the protagonist of duty on the grounds of mental and emotional instability. I literally don't like the primary character, the person upon whom, for better or worse, the writers have ensured that this story must hang. I really don't care what happens to her. Similarly, I never really felt more than mild interest about where the story goes.

The positives...? Michelle Yeoh was one of the best Starfleet captains we've had in the franchise. The real Klingons would rightfully put her in the Hall of Heroes. She died as an officer and as a warrior should having done everything right from the start; Kahless himself will embrace her spirit on its arrival in the next life. Beyond that, there were a few moments of mild amusement and interest on my part but that was it.

I commend the effort made on the sets and some of the props but, ultimately, it was wasted effort for a collection of cardboard performances and a dreary script and ill-presented story.

I will watch episode 3 only because I want to know how Burnham gets from imprisoned and probably crazy failure to an officer on the Discovery but, unless it does a great job in convincing me, it will be the last episode of Discovery that I watch.

Ben's Rating: 3.5/10

How would I have done it better? Start during the mission of the Discovery or possibly at the time when Burnham was recruited for the mission and discuss the disastrous events of the pilot only in flashback. You would have immediately got to the here and now, got the audience invested in the crew and, just possibly, made Burnham seem less of a screw-up.

Soooo... as I await episode 3, I can't help but speculate about where Michael goes from here. About the only thing I can come up with is Section 31. Now *that* would make for an interesting show.

Probably the captain's chair... I got this impression from comments I heard from the actress about this acting opportunity given the political climate in the US...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiM0NNXhPvE

It's not Roddenberry. What I mean is, it's cynical and somewhat dystopian. Roddenberry was all "we're all space communists living enlightened lives without money," most clearly in TNG where he had the most creative control. Picard, though he could still make mistakes, had a basically watertight moral compass, and that's what made TNG so unique and rare among scifi. But Star Trek hasn't really been that for a while. DS9 really wasn't that Roddenberryesque, even though fans loved it.

But once you accept that it's much darker than TNG, it's pretty good. Contrary to what many here said, I like what they did with the Klingons a lot. They look different, but so what?? It's a less significant change than from TOS (where they were basically human) to TNG. I miss the sweet hair, but oh well. They got the Klingon culture and religion spot on. I liked it. They did their research.

I didn't mind the Klingon's change as much as I did their obviously painful, very hard to articulate dental prosphetics - when speaking English, let alone Klingon they were barely understandable. In TNG I know that the actors playing Ferengi often struggled to get clear diction while having to wear the big teeth. At some point they are going to be speaking with Klingons more in English - and they're still going to need subtitles at this rate!

Soooo... as I await episode 3, I can't help but speculate about where Michael goes from here. About the only thing I can come up with is Section 31. Now *that* would make for an interesting show.

Now that I've seen the second episode and the preview for the rest of the season, I think you're right about Section 31. It would also match the dark tone of what we've seen so far.

BTW, Discovery is NCC-1031. A possible "easter egg" hint about the show?

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: sanman on 09/30/2017 04:29 AM

I've avoided watching Star Trek Discovery so far - because I'd heard the producers were going to make it in the style of Game of Thrones. Apparently, this is what passes for originality in Hollywood these days - just look for whatever's on the landscape that's most successful, and then try to emulate it or incorporate it into your own show.

For instance, Kevin Sorbo famously pushed for the story-arc style in Star Trek: Andromeda -- because it was the "cool" thing to do -- and admittedly there wasn't a whole lot that was compelling about Andromeda to begin with.

Personally, I don't think every possible type of style needs to be reproduced in the Star Trek universe, and Game of Thrones is a little too gritty for it. Formulaic edginess isn't really edgy.

I've been a Star Trek fan for nearly 50 years and pride myself on my (supposed) ability to be objective about the franchise I love. I don't have blind loyalty too it, nor do I act as an overt apologist for it. I have noted in the past that I was quite unhappy with aspects of the modern reboot franchise - but I would not out-and-out trash it. I approached the Discovery series with as few apprehensions and biases as I could. A: I thought another prequel was not necessary B: I would have preferred a series set in the 'Next Generation' timeline, but with a quite different set of characters and ship. A modern show - not made the way it was in the 1990s - but not reeking of too much modernistic violence and 'shaky-cam/lens flares' either.

Clearly: my bias and 'prayers' were not answered. Discovery is a prequel; set ten years before Kirk takes command of the U.S.S. Enterprise. And it's not about Kirk, Spock and company. Though Spock's Dad is a pivotal character!! I think setting it 10 years before, shows that the producers want to have a 7-to-10 year run. Fine with me. Do they want to have Robert April or Chris Pike and their Enterprise make a cameo in Discovery? I'm not holding out for it; but that would be cool if handled properly! And I don't want them to use the JJ Abrams 'reboot' ship design if they do - that would violate the 'prime' timeline they are allegedly using in Discovery. 'Enterprise' the series managed to make good use of a Constitution class ship in their Mirror Universe story. But if they go down that route; I hope they do it right and not cheesily.

As for my reaction to Discovery so far; after only two episodes? I'm not going to make a fanboy commitment to it yet. And although I have reservations about the Klingons who speak with even more difficulty than Marlon Brando with cheeks of cotton wool - I think the show has promise and the star Sonequa Martin-Green has promise and adequate acting chops. I can't emphasize enough that it will almost all be in the writing - no good stories and plot logic for the actors to get their teeth into - then all the flashy special effects and hand-to-hand combat in the galaxy will not make the show fly. Literally.

Will it be successful? I hope so. Will there be enough Star Trek fandom brand loyalty to keep it afloat? I don't know. Will there be enough people who don't like the show because the Klingons have the wrong-shaped Battleth, forehead bumps and they don't like the shape of the ship's engine nacelles? Will those an4l type of folk be numerous enough to sink a promising Space Opera?

After watching the pilot and second episode, I am convinced that the producers and writers were at someone's house smoking a lot of weed when they came up with the great idea of trashing 30 years of Klingon development, culture, history and familiarity to the fan and turn them into black insects. Furthermore, what was the point of making this ten years before Kirk and Spock if the sets and uniforms look 100 years past the Next Generation?

They should have had the same basic architecture, set design (with modern controls, of course) and same uniforms and hair styles as the original series to date it to the same basic TOS. That would have given the faithful Star Trek fan a wonderful sense of familiarity and nostalgia. They insulted every Star Trek fan and put their faith in attracting a new generation who don;t know enough about the Star Trek universe to give a hoot.

Also, why before the original series. You handcuff yourself instead of taking it immediately after the three year mission, where you can tap into all the previous episodes. Bad, bad decisions here.

If I had the controls, it would have begun immediately after The Enterprise Incident, with Starfleet trying to examine the cloaking device Kirk and Spock stole, but they can’t open it. The Romulan commander insists she get’s sent back, even though knowing she would be facing execution, and the Romulans are also demanding her back.

Romulan agents are successful in destroying the cloaking device, and the Romulan commander (she is never given a name) learns her family has been executed, and decides to stay with the Federation. She will be a key character. The series will be a heightening of the Romulan-Federation cold war with the Klingon’s aligning themselves with the Romulans. This would essentially lead to the Enterprise C incident (from Next Generation episode Yesterday’s Enterprise) which would be the end point of the storyline.

I would have maintained the uniforms, (transitioning to the new ones see on The Wrath of Khan) Klingons would be the same as the Next Generation, and less cluttered battle scenes.

That’s my take. Not impressed at all. They may attract a new generation of fans but let down every traditional fan. Poor writing and terrible dialogue.

I'm trying to be as objective as possible about ST:D, as well as The Orville. So I'm trying not to draw conclusions until I've seen a bunch of episodes of each. So far The Orville seems more like Star Trek--because it is ripping off The Next Generation. But it's also rather unimaginative, not simply because it's ripping off The Next Generation, but because it's striving to be a 1990 TV show instead of trying to emulate the themes of Star Trek, but doing it like more modern sci-fi. ST:D, in contrast, is following the style of the recent movies, based upon the assumption that (as Kirk actor Chris Pine has said) modern audiences don't really care about characterization and story and really mostly want action and conflict.*

That said, this article makes a number of great observations about both shows and why and how they differ:

"I’ve written at length over the last year about the current contradiction present in the ongoing Star Trek universe. To wit, the recent movies (going back at least to Star Trek: Nemesis and obviously the rebooted continuity) have had to juggle the needs of the many (audiences who crave big-scale blockbuster action) with the needs of the few (hardcore Star Trek fans who prefer more philosophy and less slam-bang spectacle). And Paramount’s hopes of turning big-budget sci-fi action into MCU-level overseas grosses have caused the budgets of the most recent Star Trek movies to spin out of control.

Star Trek Beyond cost $185 million and earned just $340m worldwide, temporarily grounding the new variation on Paramount’s flagship property. The irony is that the movies cost way too much compared to the actual overseas appeal of the Star Trek movies, and said big budgets and Star Wars-ish action beats have gone toward conventional event movie thrills that have turned off the hardcore fans. Even the most recent two-part pilot for CBS All Access’s Star Trek Discovery was arguably a TV-scaled variation of same, offering huge spectacle to plant its flag in the sand."

SNIP

"Back when Star Trek Beyond was trying to find a director, I suggested that Aaron Sorkin direct, or at least write, the third chapter in the new Trek, arguing that his signature motif (impassioned, intelligent, competent people doing an important job and relishing the opportunity to be good and do good together) was essentially Star Trek in a nutshell. But this comes to mind for two reasons. First, at a glance, Star Trek Discovery may end up being Studio 60 to The Orville’s 30 Rock. Moreover, MacFarlane has ironically given fans what they claim to want from the sci-fi property.

For the record, the above comparison is not related to quality, merely in terms of initial intentions (a very grandiose sci-fi actioner versus a somewhat self-poking workplace comedy). Truth be told, since I’ve only seen two episodes of Discovery and those two episodes were a glorified prologue and offered few major characters who will reappear regularly, I have no idea what kind of Star Trek show it will be. But, four episodes in, I can already argue that The Orville is exactly the kind of Star Trek show that fans have been clamoring for.

By not having a budget (or requirements) for wall-to-wall spectacle, the hour-long Fox show is forced to focus on character, chemistry, sci-fi plotting and moral debates that have partially defined Gene Roddenberry’s property for generations. Yes, to a certain extent it’s fan fiction, but then so is so much of our current pop culture entertainment. But by being a network television show, it is forced to be the kind of Star Trek that fans claim the recent movies have neglected in favor of four-quadrant blockbuster thrills. The Orville is not a spoof, but rather a straight-faced Trek show with characters who are funny and can laugh at funny events."

SNIP

"Sans the pressure to be bigger, bolder, faster, and free from the budget and expectations that demand big-scale action sequences and “the world is in peril” plotting, The Orville uses its adventure of the week format to explore modern-day social issues and tackle current moral dilemmas in a sci-fi venue. I like its characters, and I like that they are good at what they do and seem to like each other. The show is refreshingly progressive in its politics, and optimistic to its core. It is a Star Trek show for folks who want something a bit old-school.

Again, I haven’t seen the third episode of Star Trek Discovery, and I frankly don’t wish to make it a competition. The best-case scenario is that the CBS show, with a superb lead in Sonequa Martin-Green, offers high-quality, big-scale Star Trek while Fox’s “homage” offers a more traditional Trek which emphasizes cast chemistry and social issues of the day. For those fans who were turned off by the jokey previews and commercials, I’d suggest giving The Orville another shot, starting perhaps with the second episode which begins to spotlight the supporting cast.

The irony is that, by ripping off rather than revamping and by being hamstrung by network television production values and thus putting an emphasis on character and social parable over sci-fi action, The Orville has a pretty good shot at becoming the kind of Star Trek that fans claim to want so badly. I’m hoping this variation indeed lives long and prospers."

Read the whole article for some good insight and analysis.

*Note: Pine was not indicating that this was a good thing. He said it was simply what audiences expected and what the new Trek movies were catering to.

Just a continuity note: A precursor of Section 31 was around prior to the Federation during the mission of the NX-01, so it is unlikely that Discovery could be about the agency's birth. That said, at the time the follow-up series to Star Trek: Voyager was in its earliest gestation, one of the concepts was a Section 31-based 'cloak and dagger in space' series that built on the darker tones of Deep Space Nine. It isn't beyond possibility that this show is the result of someone dusting off those proposals.

FWIW, I'm not sure that I'm interested in watching Star Trek: The Dirty Dozen and that is very much what this is feeling like at the moment.

--- [EDIT] ---

Okay, now I've seen episode 3 and... I'm going to keep this spoiler-free.

So, where to start? Frankly, this crew, this ship and its mission all terrify me. This is no longer even tangentially recognisable as the Federation or Starfleet, nor the world of Star Trek in any of its prior incarnations.

Interesting new ideas and new characters continue to be introduced (including one character that, miracle of miracles, I actually like). There is no doubt that this is an interesting bit of sci-fi we're witnessing here but I rally question if this is Star Trek, even in comparison to its darkest moments in Deep Space Nine. Further, the new technobabble miracle-tech is something not even hinted at in previous Treks, marking this as clearly yet another alternate universe of some description. It certainly isn't the Trek of Kirk's era as it is alleged to be. My rejection of the Discovery and its' mission is instinctual on both artistic and on aesthetic grounds.

So, I'm left with a really hard dilemma here. I'm more than a little interested to see just how badly this all blows up. On the other hand, I'm not sure if I'm interested in watching a ship full of anti-heroes ply their way through the stars led by... well, I'll let everyone else make their own decisions about the good captain's likely psychiatric diagnosis.

So, I'll have to think about this one.

BenRG's Rating: 5/10 (+half a point for the introduction of someone who is, so far, the only genuinely likeable member of the crew.)

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: nacnud on 10/02/2017 07:53 PM

It's interesting sci-fi, but it's not star trek. Shame the concepts in this would have been better explored outside the trek franchise and both are diminished because of this. Gona watch it though because it's fun.

It's interesting sci-fi, but it's not star trek. Shame the concepts in this would have been better explored outside the trek franchise and both are diminished because of this. Gona watch it though because it's fun.

For how to do this right, see The Expanse.

Spoiler Alert - don't read a thread about a show if you don't want spoilers. :)

~~~

~~~

~~~

~~~

~~~

~~~

I'm not buying the "it's not Star Trek" just yet. It's clearly a post-scarcity society that is much more interested in exploration and science than war. But they aren't perfect and they stumbled into a war. Everyone is blaming Burnham's mutiny on starting the war but that's plain wrong (though the mutiny was a complete boneheaded move and she should be in prison for it.) The question ultimately is how do they navigate prosecuting a war?

I do miss (mostly) squeaky clean Picard but I'm willing to see what Lorca does with the midichlorians^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hspace-spores and space-tardigrade.

Basically I'm hoping that might-makes-right does not prevail.

I'm confused what tech Discovery has that TOS did not (besides space-spores and touch screens.) To me it just looks like better special effects. Warp drive, phasers, photon torpedoes, shields, tractor beams...

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Nathan on 10/02/2017 09:07 PM

I’d like to weigh in here. This show is the most exciting, innovative and gripping version of trek yet. The previous treks played happy families too much and had rather childish characters. This trek has properly defined Klingons - the culture and religion introduced in TNG finally makes sense. I love that we are left wanting a trek based on the shenzhou crew but actually have something far different that holds the shenzhou up as something to strive for. It will get there in the end but I wouldn’t expect every character to survive the journey. We have often seen “ship gone wrong” episodes or black ops episodes in trek, this series will take a deeper look into that world. Saru is the most amazing trek alien yet. He can tell an entire story with his eyes and a tilt of the head. The new human characters are much more real than any in previous series. I’m excited to find out how they present the andorians! And there are mysteries in story and characters that are left to unfold as the series progresses.This feels like Star Trek for adults and I’m eagerly awaiting the next episode! 9/10

It's interesting sci-fi, but it's not star trek. Shame the concepts in this would have been better explored outside the trek franchise and both are diminished because of this. Gona watch it though because it's fun.

For how to do this right, see The Expanse.

At least this show isn’t a bore like the Expanse. I am really liking it so far and the lead actress is brilliant and it was a wise move to use her as a fixed viewpoint character. Which is a first for Trek.

I’d like to weigh in here. This show is the most exciting, innovative and gripping version of trek yet. The previous treks played happy families too much and had rather childish characters. This trek has properly defined Klingons - the culture and religion introduced in TNG finally makes sense. I love that we are left wanting a trek based on the shenzhou crew but actually have something far different that holds the shenzhou up as something to strive for. It will get there in the end but I wouldn’t expect every character to survive the journey. We have often seen “ship gone wrong” episodes or black ops episodes in trek, this series will take a deeper look into that world. Saru is the most amazing trek alien yet. He can tell an entire story with his eyes and a tilt of the head. The new human characters are much more real than any in previous series. I’m excited to find out how they present the andorians! And there are mysteries in story and characters that are left to unfold as the series progresses.This feels like Star Trek for adults and I’m eagerly awaiting the next episode! 9/10

I’d like to weigh in here. This show is the most exciting, innovative and gripping version of trek yet. The previous treks played happy families too much and had rather childish characters. This trek has properly defined Klingons - the culture and religion introduced in TNG finally makes sense. I love that we are left wanting a trek based on the shenzhou crew but actually have something far different that holds the shenzhou up as something to strive for. It will get there in the end but I wouldn’t expect every character to survive the journey.

We have often seen “ship gone wrong” episodes or black ops episodes in trek, this series will take a deeper look into that world.

Saru is the most amazing trek alien yet. He can tell an entire story with his eyes and a tilt of the head. The new human characters are much more real than any in previous series. I’m excited to find out how they present the andorians!

And there are mysteries in story and characters that are left to unfold as the series progresses.

This feels like Star Trek for adults and I’m eagerly awaiting the next episode! 9/10

Disagree with all of this except with what you said about Cmdr Saru. I have good memories of Rene Aubegonois' performance as Odo in Deep Space Nine. As he put it: "A good actor can be expressive whilst wearing a paper plate over their face."

I’d like to weigh in here. This show is the most exciting, innovative and gripping version of trek yet. The previous treks played happy families too much and had rather childish characters. This trek has properly defined Klingons - the culture and religion introduced in TNG finally makes sense. I love that we are left wanting a trek based on the shenzhou crew but actually have something far different that holds the shenzhou up as something to strive for. It will get there in the end but I wouldn’t expect every character to survive the journey.

We have often seen “ship gone wrong” episodes or black ops episodes in trek, this series will take a deeper look into that world.

Saru is the most amazing trek alien yet. He can tell an entire story with his eyes and a tilt of the head. The new human characters are much more real than any in previous series. I’m excited to find out how they present the andorians!

And there are mysteries in story and characters that are left to unfold as the series progresses.

This feels like Star Trek for adults and I’m eagerly awaiting the next episode! 9/10

Disagree with all of this except with what you said about Cmdr Saru. I have good memories of Rene Aubegonois' performance as Odo in Deep Space Nine. As he put it: "A good actor can be expressive whilst wearing a paper plate over their face."

No doubt you’re one of these Trek fans online who seem to want to keep the franchise in aspic so it never really progresses.

No, I'm one of those Star Trek fans who think that change for change's sake, especially change for the sake of appealing to the disturbing fascination with 'dark' characters and stories that is increasingly prevalent in society is missing what Star Trek is supposed to be about and trying to get ratings by pandering to all the most dangerous and destructive cultural trends.

No, I'm one of those Star Trek fans who think that change for change's sake, especially change for the sake of appealing to the disturbing fascination with 'dark' characters and stories that is increasingly prevalent in society is missing what Star Trek is supposed to be about and trying to get ratings by pandering to all the most dangerous and destructive cultural trends.

And to me that’s an over reaction, verging on the ludicrous to call it disturbing, in that if you think these characters are really all that dark in the context of well thought of shows like Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones, or the general TV landscape then you need to watch more. The kind of darkness on display in this show is very much 12 rated and it’s all the better for it. And certainly no worse than what you might get in a Halloween episode of The Simpson’s.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Oli on 10/03/2017 08:59 PM

I don't mind 'gritty drama' but too many shows try it nowadays and fail, including this one. It also feels out of place in the Trek universe.

I don't mind 'gritty drama' but too many shows try it nowadays and fail, including this one. It also feels out of place in the Trek universe.

Agree. I'm withholding full judgement until I've seen several more episodes but this was almost "Mirror Universe" levels of darkness. Lorca reminds me a lot of mirror universe Kirk.

As far as the other characters the blonde Science officer goes down in my book as the most annoying ST character EVER (even beyond Wesley Crusher) while Saru is the most compelling and interesting. Saru's moral compass also seems to be more in tune with "classic trek" as well.

It also seems that while the screenwriters claim this is set in the Prime universe it seems to be more of a re-imagined Prime universe. More like what the JJ-verse would look like if Nero never went back in time in the first place.

I don't mind 'gritty drama' but too many shows try it nowadays and fail, including this one. It also feels out of place in the Trek universe.

Agree. I'm withholding full judgement until I've seen several more episodes but this was almost "Mirror Universe" levels of darkness. Lorca reminds me a lot of mirror universe Kirk.

As far as the other characters the blonde Science officer goes down in my book as the most annoying ST character EVER (even beyond Wesley Crusher) while Saru is the most compelling and interesting. Saru's moral compass also seems to be more in tune with "classic trek" as well.

It also seems that while the screenwriters claim this is set in the Prime universe it seems to be more of a re-imagined Prime universe. More like what the JJ-verse would look like if Nero never went back in time in the first place.

Heard that, but it isn't the old type Star Trek. I kind of like Orville better. You can tell it is more "Star Trekie". Discovery is so serious. There is war, and what is it with the new Klingons. At least the old Klingon women looked better. They are supposed to be "humanoid", but they look far from it.

Speaking as a now disinterested outside observer who is using these discussions to decide if he will Netflix this once it is available there I do have the following comment for those complaining about the darkness involved with 'Lord High Emperor Starship Captains'.

Speaking as a now disinterested outside observer who is using these discussions to decide if he will Netflix this once it is available there I do have the following comment for those complaining about the darkness involved with 'Lord High Emperor Starship Captains'.

SNIP

What made Star Trek 'Star Trek' was that it DID do dark and gritty. But it did it by examining the consequences of taking that step too far.

I think an important difference is that now we have an entire series that is dealing with the dark and gritty, not just a single episode.

I am liking the stories and the series, but my problem is that it doesn't feel like Star Trek. It lacks the optimism and the exploring strange new worlds aspects. And it's just dumped all over canon, treating the stuff that has been established in hundreds of previous episodes as if it is disposable. I don't want to get all spoilery here, but not only have they ignored things that have been established as "real" for the time period that this show depicts (like Klingons have flat foreheads during this time period), but they are doing things that don't exist in all the later series.

So my problem is that the people running Discovery don't seem to really want to do Star Trek. They want to do their own thing. That's fine, they have talent. But why call it Star Trek if you're going to ignore so much of what happened before?

So my problem is that the people running Discovery don't seem to really want to do Star Trek. They want to do their own thing. That's fine, they have talent. But why call it Star Trek if you're going to ignore so much of what happened before?

To prove that they know better than the previous writers, directors and producers and that Star Trek would have been much better with them in charge from the start.

It looks to me as if this series could be about the foundation of Section 31. This could explain the technology thing as perhaps they have access to more advanced technology.

I also think it is about Section 31, but Section 31 was already around in the "Star Trek: Enterprise" timeframe 100 years earlier (see the episode "Divergence"). Also, the post-series Enterprise novels have Trip still alive (his death in the series finale was faked) and is an agent for Section 31.

For those new to this, "Section 31" is the Federation's "CIA-like" secret service. It was a recurring storyline on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Admiral Marcus in "Star Trek Into Darkness" was also evidently a Section 31 officer.

Lots of things to find fault with in that review, though. Such as the slam about "male privilege" in the list of captains, even though one on the list is a woman, and this despite the fact that The Original Series strongly implied women were not starship Captains (a claim now ignored by both Enterprise and Discovery.) Lorca is definitely not a nice guy, but we've seen plenty of bad captains in Star Trek before (Tracey, Ransom, Harriman, Maxwell, etc.) that Lorca is bad doesn't make this un-Trek. We're just seeing Star Trek from the point of view that not every starship has Kirk or Picard as a Captain. They're also making some assumptions about Lorca and Ash that I believe are not yet warranted there.

Glad to see we’ve now got a moral centre character in the Doctor, Trek always seems to have one of those and it’s often an important way into the show for the viewer. By far the most Trek episode I thought and the one I most could imagine appearing in previous Trek shows minus the swearing. Agree the Klingons are getting boring now.

I used to think that, but gave up years ago. The only "policy" that works is self-censorship: if you don't want to risk spoilers, then don't read any article or thread about the subject matter until you have watched the episode. You cannot expect people to wait for everybody to see it.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: nacnud on 10/16/2017 08:52 PM

Cool, that's what I've been doing myself.

What I was hinting about above was that Paul Stamets reflection in the mirror is no longer in sync with him. I hope this isn't some reference to the 'mirror universe' of past treks.

2-What I was hinting about above was that Paul Stamets reflection in the mirror is no longer in sync with him. I hope this isn't some reference to the 'mirror universe' of past treks.

1-If you are referring to what I wrote about spoilers, it is really the only thing that works, because there's so much media out there and so many places it is being discussed, somebody is going to spoil it. So you have to shield your eyes.

(As an aside: my local TV critic wrote a big article about this a year or two ago after somebody ranted at him for spoiling a plot point in a television show that had aired a year earlier. He finally came out and said it: shows and movies are now appearing in so many different ways and on so many different platforms that expecting people to adhere to old-fashioned spoiler policies was impractical. When Netflix releases an entire season of something instantly, and many people binge-watch it, they may want to discuss that entire season the very next day. So why are their interests less important than the interests of people who wait a week or a month or a year? They're not. So we all have to readjust and control what we expose ourselves to.)

You mean the fact that (spoilers--although not really), for the first time in Trek, we have an openly gay couple?

Trek's pretty late to the party. Other science fiction shows did that quite awhile ago.

But rarely with men.

And they've often lacked the courage of their convictions. Babylon-5 in the 1990s (briefly) had a gay character. Caprica and Battlestar Galactica also did it. Trek did not want the controversy (look up what George Takei has written about his conversation with Gene Roddenberry about that).* But we're now at a point where it's no BFD. Society has moved on.

*You could actually write a book about how Trek has tackled some tough social issues and then run away from others. (The best example of the former is the Kirk-Uhura kiss.) It's always been a business, and they avoided certain issues because they didn't want TV stations refusing to air certain episodes.

What I was hinting about above was that Paul Stamets reflection in the mirror is no longer in sync with him. I hope this isn't some reference to the 'mirror universe' of past treks.

Given that the Spore Drive apparently works on a quantum level, it's possible that, Stamets is beginning to suffer from some kind of 'uncertainty drag' with other possible states begin to manifest. Purest Trek technobabble, I know.

You do realize you're not making the case you think you're making, right?

Doesn't 'male privilege' imply only men? There were five names on Saru's list, one a woman. And this was supposed to be 'the best Captains in Starfleet history' or words to that effect. I guess I'm just missing the point of IO9's slam. On the one hand, they're arguing that Discovery isn't adhering to Trek standards (complaining about Lorca's less than ideal morals), but on the other they're complaining that Starfleet Captains are all men (something that was true of Trek all the way to 1986's Star Trek IV) while at the same time showing a screen-cap display that shows one woman on the list (and she is from this very series.)

Doesn't 'male privilege' imply only men? There were five names on Saru's list, one a woman. And this was supposed to be 'the best Captains in Starfleet history' or words to that effect. I guess I'm just missing the point of IO9's slam.

Their point was:

1-it's the future (and Star Trek)2-80% of the names on that list are male3-doesn't seem very balanced

I dunno if he's Voq, but almost from the first time he spoke I thought "He's a spy." They just introduced him too blatantly--put him in, team him up with the captain, have the captain escape with his help. And rather obviously, the female Klingon commander does not get vaporized by the captain, unlike every other Klingon he shoots with the rifle. It just struck me as lazy writing, like TV shows where the bad guy always escapes at the end of the episode even though the good guy could have just SHOT HIM.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: nacnud on 10/17/2017 01:01 AM

I thought Lorca shot L’Rell in the eyes on purpose for the way she tortured him. Did we find out how exactly he damaged his eyes in the first place?

In all honesty, I don't understand why they are combining this series and the name Star Trek. Well, other than trying to milk the brand.

Exactly same stories without the twisted version of Star Trek universe they're building here would probably be a fine show.

But Star Trek it ain't.

I disagree. It's going to be the story of how the Federation survives through a dark time. It's not like all of the history leading up to TOS was humans being perfect. Lorca is a war monger, no two ways about it. Burnham has seen slaughter at the hands of the Klingons which may or may not be a blind spot. In just this episode several characters struggle with ethical issues and choose to (eventually) take the high road.

Modern TV is not "bottle episodes" [*] so the story will unfold over time and with the characters actually growing. And if the writers do their job, this series will lead to a Federation committed to Kirk and friends galavanting around the galaxy on an actual voyage of discovery.

* I loved TNG but it gets really annoying that virtually no episode affects any other episode.

I thought Lorca shot L’Rell in the eyes on purpose for the way she tortured him. Did we find out how exactly he damaged his eyes in the first place?

My point is that "the bad guy escapes at the end of the episode" is cliched television writing. In order for it not to be a cliche, it would have been nice to see a major character simply killed off suddenly. That's what they did with the beginning of the show, setting it up on the Shenzhou only to blow up that ship and most of the characters, including the captain. I was disappointed that this episode had that cliche in it.

We have not been told how he damaged his eyes, but it seems to me like a somewhat dumb plot point. Does it serve a larger storytelling purpose? And we've already been told that he could get them fixed but has not done so, which makes him seem rather stupid.

* I loved TNG but it gets really annoying that virtually no episode affects any other episode.

Yeah, I'm with you. And at times they could be really blind to their own potential. For instance, "The Inner Light" is widely regarded as one of the series' best episodes. It's the one where Picard is taken over by an alien probe and lives almost an entire life on the doomed planet, where he has a wife and children and a family. It's a beautiful story and should have profoundly affected him. But except for one or two later episodes where he is seen with the flute from that story, they just dropped it. It would have been more powerful if at times he referred to his "family," and his crewmembers reacted to that (either disturbed, or supportive, because it was real to him). Later, Star TrekGenerations had the opportunity to include that in the story line and just ignored it completely.

I just chalk this up to the fact that television was mostly written differently those days, and the idea of story arcs that lasted entire seasons, and characters who changed substantially over time, just was not common. Also, TNG was syndicated, and individual stations wanted to be able to show episodes in any order, not in a specific order, and that drove the writing.

I disagree. It's going to be the story of how the Federation survives through a dark time. It's not like all of the history leading up to TOS was humans being perfect. Lorca is a war monger, no two ways about it. Burnham has seen slaughter at the hands of the Klingons which may or may not be a blind spot. In just this episode several characters struggle with ethical issues and choose to (eventually) take the high road.

The writers have already established one theme that existed as subtext in a lot of early Trek: the military mission of Starfleet vs. the scientific and exploration goals.

I can enjoy the current series for what it is, but I do think it is lacking some of the things that made Star Trek unique compared to many other science fiction shows: its optimism and its belief in a set of values like strength through diversity, and conflict resolution.

Right now the show is dark. Star Trek occasionally did go dark. But it went dark, it didn't start dark. Maybe we'll see the show eventually end up with the values that we recognize in Star Trek. And maybe that's why the writers set the show at this point in time, because they wanted to show how things were in the before time.

The protagonist is Burnham, and obviously she's supposed to have the key story arc in the show. But I find myself agreeing with the io9 article: "Burnham’s only defining characteristic continues to be “I do what I want,” and it’s unappealing. She learns every week to not do it, and then she’s right back there the next week."

I agree with that. Maybe we need to keep a running count of how many times Burnham disobeys orders. And she keeps getting away with doing that. It's not really an arc, it's Groundhog Day.

I remember watching the original series when the episodes were first aired. I can remember the time and place I watched my favourite episode "The Doomsday Machine". All I can say is that Discovery IS NOT STAR TREK. It's good science fiction, but re-inventing the entire Star Trek universe is sacrilege. All I can say is this is FAKE Star Trek. I much prefer The Orville simply because it's fun and lacks the ego or taking it too seriously as Discovery.

They should just have Michael get smashed in the head, wake up, and this has all been a dream, and return to the real Star Trek universe. Other than that, I hope it dies. You don't abandon Star Trek fans without a price.

I disagree. It's going to be the story of how the Federation survives through a dark time. It's not like all of the history leading up to TOS was humans being perfect. Lorca is a war monger, no two ways about it. Burnham has seen slaughter at the hands of the Klingons which may or may not be a blind spot. In just this episode several characters struggle with ethical issues and choose to (eventually) take the high road.

The writers have already established one theme that existed as subtext in a lot of early Trek: the military mission of Starfleet vs. the scientific and exploration goals.

I can enjoy the current series for what it is, but I do think it is lacking some of the things that made Star Trek unique compared to many other science fiction shows: its optimism and its belief in a set of values like strength through diversity, and conflict resolution.

Right now the show is dark. Star Trek occasionally did go dark. But it went dark, it didn't start dark. Maybe we'll see the show eventually end up with the values that we recognize in Star Trek. And maybe that's why the writers set the show at this point in time, because they wanted to show how things were in the before time.

The protagonist is Burnham, and obviously she's supposed to have the key story arc in the show. But I find myself agreeing with the io9 article: "Burnham’s only defining characteristic continues to be “I do what I want,” and it’s unappealing. She learns every week to not do it, and then she’s right back there the next week."

I agree with that. Maybe we need to keep a running count of how many times Burnham disobeys orders. And she keeps getting away with doing that. It's not really an arc, it's Groundhog Day.

The protagonist is Burnham, and obviously she's supposed to have the key story arc in the show. But I find myself agreeing with the io9 article: "Burnham’s only defining characteristic continues to be “I do what I want,” and it’s unappealing. She learns every week to not do it, and then she’s right back there the next week."

I agree with that. Maybe we need to keep a running count of how many times Burnham disobeys orders. And she keeps getting away with doing that. It's not really an arc, it's Groundhog Day.

Yeah. From the beginning of episode one it almost seems like she has a death wish and/or can't conceive of any impulse of her's being suboptimal. But being a human trying to be a Vulcan can't be easy. I think the writer's are just trying too hard. Hopefully they'll settle down.

Yeah. From the beginning of episode one it almost seems like she has a death wish and/or can't conceive of any impulse of her's being suboptimal. But being a human trying to be a Vulcan can't be easy. I think the writer's are just trying too hard. Hopefully they'll settle down.

We all forget that many shows take a season or two to figure things out. TNG had two lousy seasons before it started to get good. DS9 had a weak first season and took awhile to find its groove.

I do think there are some writing flaws in the show, including Burnham. One of the problems I have with her is that she's not internally consistent. We're led to believe that one of her strengths is that she was raised and educated on Vulcan. And yet she's incredibly impulsive, even more so than the other human characters. It just isn't consistent.

Burnham is toeing the line dividing her from being a Mary Sue and an Author's Pet. We're told that she's this genius of an officer, probably the best and the brightest of the best and the brightest. However, we, as the audience, are asked to take this on faith as we have had very little actual proof of this presented to us except affirmations from other characters.

Burnham is toeing the line dividing her from being a Mary Sue and an Author's Pet. We're told that she's this genius of an officer, probably the best and the brightest of the best and the brightest. However, we, as the audience, are asked to take this on faith as we have had very little actual proof of this presented to us except affirmations from other characters.

I find it strange that this Mary Sue accusation only get wheeled out when it is a female lead character.

I find it strange that this Mary Sue accusation only get wheeled out when it is a female lead character.

Aren't "Mary Sue" stories where a brilliant, fresh-out-of-the-Academy girl comes to the Enterprise, falls in love with Kirk, Spock, Data, Riker (fill in the blank) and proceeds to save the day at the end of the story? I don't see that in Discovery/Burnham.

I find it strange that this Mary Sue accusation only get wheeled out when it is a female lead character.

Aren't "Mary Sue" stories where a brilliant, fresh-out-of-the-Academy girl comes to the Enterprise, falls in love with Kirk, Spock, Data, Riker (fill in the blank) and proceeds to save the day at the end of the story? I don't see that in Discovery/Burnham.

Nor do I which is why I can’t see what the OP was on about, as Burnham is nothing like that in anyway shape or form.

I find it strange that this Mary Sue accusation only get wheeled out when it is a female lead character.

Aren't "Mary Sue" stories where a brilliant, fresh-out-of-the-Academy girl comes to the Enterprise, falls in love with Kirk, Spock, Data, Riker (fill in the blank) and proceeds to save the day at the end of the story? I don't see that in Discovery/Burnham.

That's a very common usage of the character but it isn't the only one.

In the most general terms, 'Mary Sue' defines characters that arrive out of the blue with implausible special abilities or refined skills and are instantly admired essentially universally by all the rest of the characters (and this can also go into becoming the focus of romantic thoughts for the canon primary character) despite doing very little to deserve it. The character also usually has a single extremely prominent flaw or drawback that is used unsubtly as an attempt to prove that he/she is not perfect. Mary Sues can sometimes also have dark or tragic backgrounds in an attempt to make them seem edgy or anti-heroes.

Not to be confused with a 'Scrappy' - A new character introduced mid-season that becomes the focus of the show (Seven of Nine nearly had that happen to her and it is to the writers credit that she didn't) - or a 'Sixth Ranger' - Similar to the above but better integrated to the ensemble and usually a reformed villain.

I find it strange that this Mary Sue accusation only get wheeled out when it is a female lead character.

Aren't "Mary Sue" stories where a brilliant, fresh-out-of-the-Academy girl comes to the Enterprise, falls in love with Kirk, Spock, Data, Riker (fill in the blank) and proceeds to save the day at the end of the story? I don't see that in Discovery/Burnham.

That's a very common usage of the character but it isn't the only one.

In the most general terms, 'Mary Sue' defines characters that arrive out of the blue with implausible special abilities or refined skills and are instantly admired essentially universally by all the rest of the characters (and this can also go into becoming the focus of romantic thoughts for the canon primary character) despite doing very little to deserve it. The character also usually has a single extremely prominent flaw or drawback that is used unsubtly as an attempt to prove that he/she is not perfect. Mary Sues can sometimes also have dark or tragic backgrounds in an attempt to make them seem edgy or anti-heroes.

Not to be confused with a 'Scrappy' - A new character introduced mid-season that becomes the focus of the show (Seven of Nine nearly had that happen to her and it is to the writers credit that she didn't) - or a 'Sixth Ranger' - Similar to the above but better integrated to the ensemble and usually a reformed villain.

I don’t think she’s that kind of character but if you are so intent with defining the character in that way then all I can suggest is to stop watching the show and all matters will then be resolved.

Yeah. From the beginning of episode one it almost seems like she has a death wish and/or can't conceive of any impulse of her's being suboptimal. But being a human trying to be a Vulcan can't be easy. I think the writer's are just trying too hard. Hopefully they'll settle down.

We all forget that many shows take a season or two to figure things out. TNG had two lousy seasons before it started to get good. DS9 had a weak first season and took awhile to find its groove.

I do think there are some writing flaws in the show, including Burnham. One of the problems I have with her is that she's not internally consistent. We're led to believe that one of her strengths is that she was raised and educated on Vulcan. And yet she's incredibly impulsive, even more so than the other human characters. It just isn't consistent.

Ah but humans are funny like that. To quote Heinlein: "Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal." I believe there are a psychological studies that show that extremely intelligent people frequently use their intelligence to justify irrational beliefs and behaviors.

As a Trek fan, I'm committed to watching and have generally enjoyed the series so far. Episode 5, in my opinion, showed a disturbing unethical behavior on the part of the Captain (leaving Mudd behind at gun point). This bothers me because I learned a great deal as a kid about morality by watching TOS. I'm hoping Captain Lorca is later held accountable or at least his immorality has negative consequences. Otherwise, this will be just another show.

As a Trek fan, I'm committed to watching and have generally enjoyed the series so far. Episode 5, in my opinion, showed a disturbing unethical behavior on the part of the Captain (leaving Mudd behind at gun point). This bothers me because I learned a great deal as a kid about morality by watching TOS. I'm hoping Captain Lorca is later held accountable or at least his immorality has negative consequences. Otherwise, this will be just another show.

I cannot say that I was greatly disturbed that he left Mudd behind. But it also wasn't very much like Star Trek to do so. The way Star Trek would normally do this is that Lorca would save Mudd, bring him back to Discovery, and promptly throw him into the brig.

As a Trek fan, I'm committed to watching and have generally enjoyed the series so far. Episode 5, in my opinion, showed a disturbing unethical behavior on the part of the Captain (leaving Mudd behind at gun point). This bothers me because I learned a great deal as a kid about morality by watching TOS. I'm hoping Captain Lorca is later held accountable or at least his immorality has negative consequences. Otherwise, this will be just another show.

Would you rather they did what the Federation did in the TOS episode Mudd’s Women where he is effectively a human trafficker and all the crew are seen to do is leer over the ladies.

Ah but humans are funny like that. To quote Heinlein: "Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal." I believe there are a psychological studies that show that extremely intelligent people frequently use their intelligence to justify irrational beliefs and behaviors.

But we're not talking about a real human here, we're talking about a character on a TV show. I agree that humans can be confoundingly unpredictable at times (heck, I've known people for years, watched their actions, and then seen them do things that just don't really fit what I thought I knew about them). I had problems with the very first episode because of a lack of consistency:

-nobody has seen the Klingons in 100 years, except that they attacked a Vulcan colony (with Burnham on it) 20 years earlier-the Vulcan reached a peaceful understanding with the Klingons and they don't fight anymore, except that the Klingons attacked that Vulcan colony-Burnham was educated and trained on Vulcan and should be very logical, except that she rather impulsively disobeys orders a lot

I feel like I need to provide caveats all the time: I don't hate the show (well, except for changing the Klingons). But it has some issues that I hope they work out. I'd like to see it get better.

As a Trek fan, I'm committed to watching and have generally enjoyed the series so far. Episode 5, in my opinion, showed a disturbing unethical behavior on the part of the Captain (leaving Mudd behind at gun point).

The 'leave Mudd behind' scene was telegraphed when Lorca told the story of the USS Buran, where he killed his crew rather than let them be taken prisoner.* He's ruthless. And frankly, I don't understand how he is still a starship captain after that. I'm wondering if this all plays in to what Burnham is doing on the ship.

*I think. Or was that just a story he told to test Mudd? I thought Mudd raised the subject first, but I'm not sure.

As a Trek fan, I'm committed to watching and have generally enjoyed the series so far. Episode 5, in my opinion, showed a disturbing unethical behavior on the part of the Captain (leaving Mudd behind at gun point).

The 'leave Mudd behind' scene was telegraphed when Lorca told the story of the USS Buran, where he killed his crew rather than let them be taken prisoner.* He's ruthless. And frankly, I don't understand how he is still a starship captain after that. I'm wondering if this all plays in to what Burnham is doing on the ship.

*I think. Or was that just a story he told to test Mudd? I thought Mudd raised the subject first, but I'm not sure.

Mudd is the one who tells the story about how Lorca killed his crew. Lorca confirms it and says that he did not want them to be captured by the Klingons.

So you're right that by leaving Mudd behind, Lorca is demonstrating his ruthlessness--he is doing to Mudd exactly what he would not allow for his own crew. And I think that you're right that this is setting up stuff that will pay off later in the series, when Lorca's ruthlessness leads to his downfall, and somehow Michael redeems herself and ends up in command.

Ah but humans are funny like that. To quote Heinlein: "Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal." I believe there are a psychological studies that show that extremely intelligent people frequently use their intelligence to justify irrational beliefs and behaviors.

But we're not talking about a real human here, we're talking about a character on a TV show. I agree that humans can be confoundingly unpredictable at times (heck, I've known people for years, watched their actions, and then seen them do things that just don't really fit what I thought I knew about them). I had problems with the very first episode because of a lack of consistency:

-nobody has seen the Klingons in 100 years, except that they attacked a Vulcan colony (with Burnham on it) 20 years earlier-the Vulcan reached a peaceful understanding with the Klingons and they don't fight anymore, except that the Klingons attacked that Vulcan colony-Burnham was educated and trained on Vulcan and should be very logical, except that she rather impulsively disobeys orders a lot

I feel like I need to provide caveats all the time: I don't hate the show (well, except for changing the Klingons). But it has some issues that I hope they work out. I'd like to see it get better.

I'm on the same page. Apologies if I seem to be pushing back too hard, I think you've made a lot of really good points and I've really enjoyed reading your thoughts on the show. There are a lot of issues with the set up of the storyline and the characters. I'm probably trying to justify why I'm optimistic about the show to myself as much as anyone else.

I don't think we're in violent disagreement here. I'll keep watching Discovery, but I'm not totally hooked by it. One of my issues with it is that the main characters (Michael, Lorca) are less interesting to me than some of the others. I'm more interested in Saru and, believe it or not, Tilly.*

My biggest overall issues with the show, however, are:

-it just looks too different from previous Star Trek, particularly the Klingons, but other things as well-it lacks the optimistic tone I've come to associate with Star Trek-it's a bit too dark and humorless, and I wish they would lighten up a bit

*Her comment that she had a secret, that she was going to be a captain someday, was rather intriguing. I heard her say that and I thought "Now that's a story I'd like to see."

I don't think we're in violent disagreement here. I'll keep watching Discovery, but I'm not totally hooked by it. One of my issues with it is that the main characters (Michael, Lorca) are less interesting to me than some of the others. I'm more interested in Saru and, believe it or not, Tilly.*

My biggest overall issues with the show, however, are:

-it just looks too different from previous Star Trek, particularly the Klingons, but other things as well-it lacks the optimistic tone I've come to associate with Star Trek-it's a bit too dark and humorless, and I wish they would lighten up a bit

*Her comment that she had a secret, that she was going to be a captain someday, was rather intriguing. I heard her say that and I thought "Now that's a story I'd like to see."

It’s a bit early to judge though after just five episodes, I am not even sure Lorca is going to last the season.

And if you're like me (and I know that I am...), then you dislike what they've done with the Klingons. Fortunately, there are people out there who are fixing their work. Here's a proper Klingon D7 cruiser:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jldnOkg16f8

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: nacnud on 10/18/2017 10:29 PM

Hahaha, love it. Just like Star Wars and the despecialized versions :)

"At New York Comic Con, X-Files creator/showrunner Chris Carter told press that this change in perception of how TV stories have to be told has changed the writing of the rebooted X-Files a bit. “It’s known as a show that has a mythology and standalone episodes, and so the audience has always gone with us from one thing to another,” he said. “I would say we’re even working harder to make those transitions seamless where we never worked quite as hard when the series was originally on. We would just do a hardcore mythology episode and go right into a comedy episode. And the audience always went with us. I think we’re more careful about that now.”

Save for sitcoms, it seems like there’s a definite polarization happening in terms of serialization versus episodic television. Along with with seasons of television that are binged, analyzed, and dissected endlessly for clues about where they’re going, there’s also been a rise in anthologies, miniseries, and made-for-TV movies. Both Game of Thrones and Black Mirror have critical, commercial, and zeitgeist-y success with radically different approaches to television. The middle ground, however, has vanished.

It’s harder now for a show to have a few perfect episodes—episodes that, on their own, justify the existence of the whole show. Everything is so intertwined that you can’t tease out a single episode that’s fun to watch on its own merits. There are people who still feel the end of Lost poisoned the rest of the show. Maybe if the mythology hadn’t taken over, that could have been prevented. That, more than the stuff about hope or violence or even cursing, is what I’m looking for when I watch Star Trek: Discovery—that perfect episode that was more a morality play performed by characters I loved than the puzzle piece of a grand design.

The way Discovery is shaking out—the way all television works now—I have trouble seeing where a standalone episode isn’t an aberration rather than part of the fabric. Which makes that show getting its own “City on the Edge of Forever,” or “The Inner Light,” or “Far Beyond the Stars,” or “The Thaw,” or “In a Mirror, Darkly,” to name one for each other Star Trek show. We’re never going to see a crew of people we know stop by a planet with a portal to the past, use it, and then move on to the next thing. That’s not “realistic.” Even if it did reveal a truth."

To have a somewhat reprehensible character as Captain does make him one of the more interesting characters on the show. The guy playing Sarek makes him an always watchable character as well. What’s a bit worrying is the character who is supposed to be her focus on the show is now proving to be one of the least interesting, after a strong start.

Thought this week’s episode was better than the last one, the fact that the new security chief is so obviously a Klingon that you wonder if it’s a double bluff.

It seems that like Who a rest from TV has done the Trek franchise some good.

Glad it got renewed for a second season after all the online doom & gloom before it even started.

Soooo... is just me or is swearing in Star Trek the final straw for any one else? They trying to generate power from Gene Roddenberry's spinning corpse or what?

It is really difficult for me to evaluate many things in current American culture. One of those items is swearing. There is not such an issue with any 'adult' TV show in Europe, as far as I know, related to how people interact, communicate, act under stress, talk to each other in bed, in the shower, to the partner of the same sex, to the partner of different culture or skin shade colour, to the bosses, to a priest, church, god or goddess, to children, to other people children, to authorities, about military, about chain of command, about harassment of any kind, about politics, and any topic you think if fits the maturity of the audience, people in the same room, age of the speaker or character or personality trait.

So you don't have too much room for a stupid plot, simple development, black and white morals (as in good/bad, sin/virtue), but for fair judgement, convenience actions, resilience, acceptance, patience, intelligence as wisdom and as deep logic... If Star Trek needs to feed the audience with wonders of the kind of teenager level of adult rule challenge ('swearing'), paternalism, simple warmongering (a job needs to be done, simple morals), military recruiting level of dialogue and discourse (I will be a captain, you need to do exercise and to eat healthy food, take your cereals for breakfast, be a good girl), abusive levels of testosterone (many girls in this show are violent, irreflexive, and cause havoc and dead, like the main character, like the security officer, they are typical males covered as females) targeted to a new audience, the coward, the passive, the intelligent (Saru), showing indoctrination plot levels about correct actions in a war situation (bombs in an enemy dead corpse), ... I can go on and on. If the show needs to do all of those things to survive or to thrive in the current America, fine. I'm not the public.

I had fears about a stupid plot filled with a slow burn mystery, that, obviously, is related to the main character(s). This is Lost, Fringe, and other really silly and time waste TV of late. But, in a sense, being Star Trek, is worse. Game of Thrones levels of money and special effects, sure. Without upsetting too much the ultraconservative society who should pay to watch it.

Try River from BBC, to see how an adult express love, grief and wonder. Try 'Department Q', specifically the third TV-film, to see how to put current (almost-)real people working together with cultural issues and differences. Just watch any French or Nordic or British show, where homosexuality is not a thing, like drinking water or doing a poo is not a thing.

Yes, there are racial issues here, some cultural, many related to income and poverty of affected victims. Religion is not a big thing, as it is not (depend on the country) police or military. Female equality is a problem. That one, yes. Working on it, hard.

This is not Star Trek pushing any boundaries at all, at all. It is another TV Show filled with violence, false pretence of adult people interacting, false dialogue and moral constraints in war related scenarios. It is as adult as any Marvel/DC Comic Book movie. And as interesting as such movies as well. It is a distorted reality field where 'real' consequences of actions and supposed war stressed staff don't match 'real' level of fear, of damage, of hope, of intelligence or of any other 'real' behaviour any intelligent writer should put in front of you if they want coherence. It is manipulation of adulthood to match teenager fantasies about it. And that trend is very American (as USA-made content).

I worked for 40 years with a company and only one person used swear words and he was demoted. What I consider bad language just wasn't used. It was mostly field work even with pipeline construction, guys in the field talked mostly about sports, and sometimes politics. Hollywood thinks the real world uses bad language all the time and they really don't, not in flyover America. I hear more bad stuff on TV and the movies than I care for. Also what people do and how they act, should be private, and not pushed on anyone. I am continuing to watch this show, but it is not the way people really act and do around each other in the real world. I can understand different alien cultures, but not humans. The different alien cultures is what gave the old Star Trek episodes spice. They were like one human emotion, or lack of amplified. Humans were the ones striking a balance.

Soooo... is just me or is swearing in Star Trek the final straw for any one else? They trying to generate power from Gene Roddenberry's spinning corpse or what?

I think Roddenberry would have done so if he'd been allowed to. He was all about pushing envelopes, especially in the '60s and '70s, and was constantly at odds with NBC during the Original Series. He had no problem with 'colorful metaphors' in Star Trek IV.

Soooo... is just me or is swearing in Star Trek the final straw for any one else? They trying to generate power from Gene Roddenberry's spinning corpse or what?

I think Roddenberry would have done so if he'd been allowed to. He was all about pushing envelopes, especially in the '60s and '70s, and was constantly at odds with NBC during the Original Series. He had no problem with 'colorful metaphors' in Star Trek IV.

Ah, but the beauty of the 'colorful metaphors' in Star Trek IV is that they're being delivered by someone with only a partial 'historical' grasp of their usage. Clearly, if the language referenced as occurring in the show is commonplace, then Kirk would not have been so 'fish out of water funny' in his usage in ST:IV

Speaking as a left-leaning millennial (I'm in my mid '20s) Canadian from the west coast, the "colourful metaphors" in Star Trek as a whole actually seem unrealistically tame to me. Adding more swearing actually makes the language more believable to me, especially if the characters are young.

I suspect this may well be partly a generational thing. My baby boomer parents still think of "the 7 words you cannot say on television" as powerful curses that you don't say unless you're profoundly angry and you definitely don't say them at work. My friends and coworkers use them among ourselves (though not in polite company who we think might take offense) on a daily basis. Of course, I work at a video game studio as a programmer - not exactly a suit-and-tie shop, so that may skew my experience somewhat - but when I meet someone outside of work, who is both close to my age and doesn't use profanity the way the rest of my cohort seems to, my assumption is that they're quite prudish and probably came from a very sheltered, devoutly religious, or very socially-conservative background. Neither of those are particularly common where I live, so they stand out. :P

This isn't to say that there aren't some boundaries, of course. Saying that the database is f*cked is fine, but using "gay" and "retarded" as pejoratives can earn you some very dirty looks. As it turns out, language is not a static thing. What is considered truly "profane" tends to change from generation to generation. F*ck and sh*t simply do not carry the same weight for my generation the way it did for the ones that preceded us.

When I brought up my comment about another "first" by Star Trek with-out spoiling a couple of weeks ago it was about the use of the "F-Bomb". Now that we all seem to be discussing it, I'll give my 2cents.... While in the film Star Trek IV, the "mild-cussing" was both instructive to the crew in terms of colloquialism and that they had evolved past such vulgarity in "their" present time, not so much in the 80's. It also provided comical relief when spoken by Spock at his science station on the bridge. ;D The use of it on the current TV series just seemed "gratuitous" to me and served no real purpose which caused me to raise my brow Spock-like... ??? Unless, it's now "a vulgar Star Trek for the vulgar times we live in:.. IMHO

Just as a note to Asif and others -- your experience of how "normal human beings" act and mine, and the next person's, are likely different. People act (and speak) differently based, a lot, on how they were raised, and (I hate to say it) on the socio-economic class to which they belong.

I work in customer service, and speak to hundreds of people a week from all over the U.S. There is most definitely a large percentage of people who live in "flyover America" who believe that it is quite reasonable to pepper their language liberally with F-bombs and to use the vulgar term of feces in *literally* every sentence. I do not exaggerate.

Just because you tend to interact with a more professional group of people (as some -- but not all -- engineers do) doesn't mean that everyone who comes from the same part of the world as they do acts as politely as they do. It all comes down to how you were raised.

Also, I will repeat an observation that I made an awful long time ago: Americans began to show a marked adjustment to the level of acceptable profanity in everyday speech after the G.I. Joes came back from WWII and began to use the barracks-language they learned during the wartime experiences in "polite" company. Their parents' generation never accepted this, but their children's generation (i.e., people my age) found such words as acceptable. A lot of us (and follow-on generations) just don't think in terms of F-bombs and other such profanity as offensive; due to the language we heard while growing up, such words were never used to cause offense, and as such, our language centers were not wired to immediately respond by taking offense when we hear them.

As such, this new Star Trek is trying, I think, to reinforce the concept that peoples' behaviors become much less polite when faced with the ridiculousness and basic illogic of wartime stresses. It paints a view of the otherwise polite 23rd-century Terran civilization as being ultimately human -- i.e., if those mild-mannered people can be driven to profanity, this should communicate the levels of stress fighting a war can generate.

Perhaps with every jump of the spore drive they end up in a slightly different reality, that one of these will be the mirror universe and eventually the original TOS universe complete with original style ships and Klingons.

Perhaps with every jump of the spore drive they end up in a slightly different reality, that one of these will be the mirror universe and eventually the original TOS universe complete with original style ships and Klingons.

Perhaps with every jump of the spore drive they end up in a slightly different reality, that one of these will be the mirror universe and eventually the original TOS universe complete with original style ships and Klingons.

I'm guessing that the season 1 climax will turn out to have some kind of quantum trickery in it. Maybe the reason why the Discovery-verse is so different from the prime time line is solely because of the Discovery and the Glenn's Toadstool Drive experiments and, when Burnham feeds back the engine on itself to seal a spacial anomaly/swirly CGI effect, they suddenly find themselves in The Cage - style uniforms, on a more TOS-looking set and wondering why there is no record of this alleged Klingon War. Or, maximum-headscrew, only Burnham remembers the previous time-line and is hard-pressed reconcile her two parallel memories of the past few years.

Perhaps with every jump of the spore drive they end up in a slightly different reality, that one of these will be the mirror universe and eventually the original TOS universe complete with original style ships and Klingons.

this suddenly explains everything

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Nibb31 on 10/31/2017 06:52 AM

Well, the last episode of Discovery was much more Star-Trek like, with a pretty much self-contained story, crew bonding and nice happy feelings. That should keep the fans happy!

Soooo... is just me or is swearing in Star Trek the final straw for any one else? They trying to generate power from Gene Roddenberry's spinning corpse or what?

It is really difficult for me to evaluate many things in current American culture.

Hollywood has its own values and culture. It's really a world of its own. It's not representative of American culture in general (which is more diverse than that). There are many articles that discusses how out of touch Hollywood has become with every day people in America (and elsewhere) and they believe that partly explains the failures of major Hollywood films this year.

This week’s Mudd episode was easily it’s most Trek like episode in the traditional sense.

I think the latest Mudd episode proves that you can have a long story arc and mix in "one off" stories. I certainly won't argue it was a great episode but it was fairly standalone and I found it fun. The end needed work but at least it wasn't Qpid from start to finish.

This is what I expect Discovery to keep doing. Push along the main storyline/struggle (which I still believe is, how does The Federation survive a war and ultimately end up The Federation we know and love rather than Starship Troopers?) With more "classic" episodes for levity or to explore different issues.

This week’s Mudd episode was easily it’s most Trek like episode in the traditional sense.

I think the latest Mudd episode proves that you can have a long story arc and mix in "one off" stories. I certainly won't argue it was a great episode but it was fairly standalone and I found it fun. The end needed work but at least it wasn't Qpid from start to finish.

This is what I expect Discovery to keep doing. Push along the main storyline/struggle (which I still believe is, how does The Federation survive a war and ultimately end up The Federation we know and love rather than Starship Troopers?) With more "classic" episodes for levity or to explore different issues.

Was a bit annoyed they didn’t say anything about the time ship stuck inside the space whale. Surely they’d want to examine something like that.

This week’s Mudd episode was easily it’s most Trek like episode in the traditional sense.

I think the latest Mudd episode proves that you can have a long story arc and mix in "one off" stories. I certainly won't argue it was a great episode but it was fairly standalone and I found it fun. The end needed work but at least it wasn't Qpid from start to finish.

This is what I expect Discovery to keep doing. Push along the main storyline/struggle (which I still believe is, how does The Federation survive a war and ultimately end up The Federation we know and love rather than Starship Troopers?) With more "classic" episodes for levity or to explore different issues.

Was a bit annoyed they didn’t say anything about the time ship stuck inside the space whale. Surely they’d want to examine something like that.

Yeah the science officers and Captain "how do we make it a weapon" Lorca should have been drooling all over that thing.

But at least next week we'll remember that a StarFleet officer and Lorca's FWB is being held captive by the Klingons.

Discovery has now had its mid-season finale, back in January. Here are a couple of pretty pictures:

Title: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Star One on 11/14/2017 08:51 PM

Looks like it’s going to start jumping from one parallel reality to another, making you wonder if the prime universe it started in was even the same as the TOS one to start with.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MickQ on 11/21/2017 10:42 AM

Everyone seems to be judging Discovery by comparing it to TOS and TNG. Try comparing it ti the new Trek movies instead. Much closer tech wise and we know Burnam was raised on Vulcan with Spock so Discovery is happening in the same era as Star Trek/Into Darkness/Beyond/........?

Everyone seems to be judging Discovery by comparing it to TOS and TNG. Try comparing it ti the new Trek movies instead. Much closer tech wise and we know Burnam was raised on Vulcan with Spock so Discovery is happening in the same era as Star Trek/Into Darkness/Beyond/........?

Discovery is suppose to be about 10 years before TOS and the writers claim it takes place in the same universe as TOS (as opposed to the new movies' timeline).

I think they'll invent a reason for the spore drive to "go away." Funnily the only technology that really bugged me in Discovery was the holodeck. Primarily because TNG made such a big deal about how new/amazing it was. But also because I hate holodeck episodes. :) I'm also a bit put off by the Vulcan mind meld allowing so much long range telepathy but again I was never a fan of mind reading and the like.

Things like flat screens and even 3D projections are fine by me since it's suppose to be in our future and I don't think you could pull off the look of TOS today without it being a distraction.

I think they'll invent a reason for the spore drive to "go away." Funnily the only technology that really bugged me in Discovery was the holodeck. Primarily because TNG made such a big deal about how new/amazing it was. But also because I hate holodeck episodes. :) I'm also a bit put off by the Vulcan mind meld allowing so much long range telepathy but again I was never a fan of mind reading and the like.

We already know why the Spore Drive will go away. It isn't practical long-term based on the affects it is having on Stammets and the fact he violated Eugenics Laws (Khan) to make it work for him.

There was already long-range mind-melding in Star Trek: Enterprise (between T'Pol and Trip, who like Burnham wasn't Vulcan.)

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MickQ on 11/21/2017 11:53 PM

I have just watched S1.E9 on Netflix here in Oz. It has been out for some weeks. Timeline wise, is everyone up to the same episode ? Is E9 the end of season 1 ? I don't want to drop any spoilers.

More of a mid-season break cliffhanger. Remaining episodes for Season 1 play in January.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MickQ on 11/22/2017 03:57 AM

Ok. So Discovery is supposed to begin about 10 years before TOS ?We know Burnham was on Shenzou for 7 years before the encounter with the Klingons.While searching for the injured Sarek in the mind meld we find out that Spock turned down an offer to join the Vulcan Expeditionary Group in order to join Starfleet before Burnham left Vulcan.While running laps around Disco's deck Burnham tells Tilly to try to get on a Constitution Class Starship like the Enterprise (presumably under the command of Christopher Pike).

So, what has Spock been doing for 17 years between leaving Vulcan and the start of TOS ?

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MickQ on 11/22/2017 04:11 AM

I assume that Discovery has "spored" into an alternate reality at the end of ep 9 therefore effectively disappearing from the face of the universe. Are we going to see an inability to jump any more thus stranding them or they can jump but have no control over the destination ?

Everyone seems to be judging Discovery by comparing it to TOS and TNG. Try comparing it ti the new Trek movies instead. Much closer tech wise and we know Burnam was raised on Vulcan with Spock so Discovery is happening in the same era as Star Trek/Into Darkness/Beyond/........?

It's also worth noting that, by the admission of the writers of Star Trek - Beyond, the three most recent Trek movies were not in the same universe as TOS and TNG but in a parallel and unconnected time-line with events occurring in different times or even not at all. It even has slightly different rules of physics (leading to the different warp drive effects.

Discovery, on the other hand, is supposed to be in the 'prime time-line', the unaltered main time-line that ran from Broken Bow to Star Trek - Nemesis. It is supposed to occur ten years before Where No Man Has Gone Before, the first Trek episode starring William Shatner, and in the same universe.

I'm still expecting some last-minute magic due to an exploding Spore Drive to make everything right in the final episode of season 1.

While searching for the injured Sarek in the mind meld we find out that Spock turned down an offer to join the Vulcan Expeditionary Group in order to join Starfleet before Burnham left Vulcan.

I'm not sure of the timeline with that. Was Burnham denied admission to the Vulcan whatever before or after Spock? My take was that Burnham was the first to seek admission, and the Vulcan establishment gave Sarek an ultimatum of "either one or the other". So he chose Spock, who at some unspecified later date defied him and went to Starfleet Academy instead. So Sarek came away empty-handed from his choice of Spock over Burnham, and thus the falling-out between Sarek and Spock.

Everyone seems to be judging Discovery by comparing it to TOS and TNG. Try comparing it ti the new Trek movies instead. Much closer tech wise and we know Burnam was raised on Vulcan with Spock so Discovery is happening in the same era as Star Trek/Into Darkness/Beyond/........?

...I'm still expecting some last-minute magic due to an exploding Spore Drive to make everything right in the final episode of season 1.

Me too. Eugenics laws and it's "hard on the navigator" might convince non-section 31 Federation from developing the spore drive further. But it's too powerful for clandestine organizations and enemies of the Federation to ignore for the next couple hundred years.

Something has to make it completely untenable.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: nacnud on 11/22/2017 04:46 PM

Well given that its a Mcguffin, and there has already been mention of it being able to access other realities, and we know there is a mirror universe story on the way...

While searching for the injured Sarek in the mind meld we find out that Spock turned down an offer to join the Vulcan Expeditionary Group in order to join Starfleet before Burnham left Vulcan.

I'm not sure of the timeline with that. Was Burnham denied admission to the Vulcan whatever before or after Spock? My take was that Burnham was the first to seek admission, and the Vulcan establishment gave Sarek an ultimatum of "either one or the other". So he chose Spock, who at some unspecified later date defied him and went to Starfleet Academy instead. So Sarek came away empty-handed from his choice of Spock over Burnham, and thus the falling-out between Sarek and Spock.

Ok. So Discovery is supposed to begin about 10 years before TOS ?We know Burnham was on Shenzou for 7 years before the encounter with the Klingons.While searching for the injured Sarek in the mind meld we find out that Spock turned down an offer to join the Vulcan Expeditionary Group in order to join Starfleet before Burnham left Vulcan.While running laps around Disco's deck Burnham tells Tilly to try to get on a Constitution Class Starship like the Enterprise (presumably under the command of Christopher Pike).

So, what has Spock been doing for 17 years between leaving Vulcan and the start of TOS ?

Well, for 13 years, at least, he served on the Enterprise. The events with Pike on Talos IV were said to have occurred 13 years before the events on The Menagerie. So he must have been in Starfleet Academy or in Starfleet.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Nomadd on 11/27/2017 03:38 AM

Finally binge watched the series. One of you could have warned me to delete the groundhog day episode. That just flat out sucked.

Some have speculated the ship is now jumping realities and this is the TOS universe they are in now at the mid-season break.

IIRC, Bryan Fuller's original drafts of the Discovery scripts (which were dismissed as 'unfilmable') contained a multiple-realities scenario, the resolution for which Sarek would prove pivotal. Maybe we're finally getting into that story arc.

Going to have to re-watch it again as I was somewhat distracted by a "humdrum" Zuma launch and landing... ;)

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Thorny on 01/08/2018 07:24 PM

"Despite Yourself" was excellent. Directed by "Next Generation" vet Jonathan Frakes. Major story-advancing here, playing into rumors and conjecture which began last fall. But with a shocking plot development I don't think anyone saw coming.

"Despite Yourself" was excellent. Directed by "Next Generation" vet Jonathan Frakes. Major story-advancing here, playing into rumors and conjecture which began last fall. But with a shocking plot development I don't think anyone saw coming.

I think getting to the Mirror universe is where they’ve wanted to take the show all along. That this was the idea they wanted to explore this season that the place isn’t some holiday camp but would actually be an utter nightmare.

[spoiler]I am increasingly certain Lorca is from the mirror universe and his whole plan was to get bank there to overthrow the emperor.[/spoiler]

I also like how the Terran Empire is looking very Roman. I have read theories on that before, but it looks like they are confirming that.

I was thinking about that and have been wondering whether that the divergence point between the Mirror Universe and the Prime Time Line may have been in the early 4th Century AD when the Emperor Constantine selected a single religion for his empire. In our universe (and most fictional ones), he selected Christianity, impelling the spreading Judeo-Christian concepts of ethics and morality throughout most of the Old World. Maybe in the Mirror Universe he selected a more bloodthirsty group like the Cult of Mithras, leading to a global culture that reflected the bloodier and more chauvinistic elements of Roman culture.

In truth, I wasn't impressed. It felt... shallow and empty. Whilst I retained a curiosity as to what would happen next, I felt no stake in the outcome beyond that mild curiosity.

Even the action scenes felt like they were from another franchise, more like Star Wars or even the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

I really like the idea of this latest episode and I like the predicament they ended in. Basically I thought it was a good story arc executed flatly. The action was too easy and super human and the outcome never felt in question.

Compare that to an episode or two ago when Stamets walked into his room and the door closed behind him. Simple story telling, economical cinematography, and the first time I ever remember feeling fear for a character during any Star Trek episode on any Star Trek franchise.

But I think my disappoint is largely related to how great I thought the previous two episodes were.

On the plus side, MU Phasers are ridiculous (in a good way. Well, an evil "we don't need no stinking stun" sort of way. The settings must be kill and obliterate.)

In truth, I wasn't impressed. It felt... shallow and empty. Whilst I retained a curiosity as to what would happen next, I felt no stake in the outcome beyond that mild curiosity.

Even the action scenes felt like they were from another franchise, more like Star Wars or even the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

I've taken a new tack to watching the show. Rather than compare it previous series or time-line, I just watch it for entertainment and escapism which is the whole point... My day profession gives me enough science fact and reality as is... ;D

In truth, I wasn't impressed. It felt... shallow and empty. Whilst I retained a curiosity as to what would happen next, I felt no stake in the outcome beyond that mild curiosity.

Even the action scenes felt like they were from another franchise, more like Star Wars or even the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Things move on, especially the expectations of the majority of the audience when it comes to things like action scenes. Sounds like you might be going into it with a lot of preconceptions as to what you think a Trek show should be?

Discovery failed to meet those at the start. I sat it out for a while as I wanted to give the show a chance to find its feet and because I wanted to see what changes the alterations CBS made to the writing team and script editing procedure would make. I came back for the Mirror Universe arc and was underwhelmed.

It is not a show about exploration and the destiny of humanity amongst the stars, which is what Trek is supposed to be about. It is a poorly-thrown-together low-ideas 'World of Warcraft in Space'.

Star One, I don't want to get into an argument with you, nor do I want a long-term feud with a fellow forumite over a TV show of all things. I have no problem with the fact that you like ST-Discovery; please respect the fact that I and others don't like it and don't try to present not liking it as some irrational quirk or moral fault on our part.

It is not a show about exploration and the destiny of humanity amongst the stars, which is what Trek is supposed to be about. It is a poorly-thrown-together low-ideas 'World of Warcraft in Space'.

Star One, I don't want to get into an argument with you, nor do I want a long-term feud with a fellow forumite over a TV show of all things. I have no problem with the fact that you like ST-Discovery; please respect the fact that I and others don't like it and don't try to present not liking it as some irrational quirk or moral fault on our part.

Fair enough you don’t like it but do you really need to reiterate the point? I’ve never got this, if I don’t like a show I just stop watching it fairly quickly usually after a couple of episodes.

It's a very good 'Space Opera' show with good actors and some good ideas. It could be argued, however that it is a Star Trek show in name only.

It seems plenty Trek to me, especially where the show is now.

I mean what precisely is un-Trek about it?

My most honest answer is this - I'm growing a little tired of SF (and fantasy) shows that are moving into dystopic, misery-laden storylines that grind on and on with no hope in sight, no wonder or 'glory' about the future and no light at the end of the tunnel. Too much anger, too much cynicism, occasionally too much profanity, and violence that can sometimes reach near-pornographic levels.

You can say I'm an old-fashioned, happy-clappy, grumpy, 'gatekeeper of true fandom' geek Trekker who wants his big Picard moral speeches, who likes his starships and Klingons looking a certain way. And most of all - you might claim that I wanna go back and relive the 1980s and 1990s. Now; there may be a grain of truth to all that. After all - I'm one of the folks who would have much preferred to see the Alec Peters vision of 'Axanar' over what we got with Discovery. And in fact; it could be argued that Discovery is the Trek series no one was crying out for or even needing. That includes me. But let me be clear: I am enjoying Discovery and so is my Wife.

I hate dislike the show but I keep watching it hoping that it will get better. I tend to disconnect from a show in between seasons. This last episode was painful to watch. I am expecting the season finale to be better.

Please bear with me; 'Hate' is a word that gets thrown around with too much abandon these days. We've lost the true context of the word. Applying hate to something when 'dislike' would be descriptive enough seems a bit hyperbolic to me. The true context of hate is something intense and corrosive, probably even tragic. In my opinion, hate belongs to the context of war, jealousy, violence and bigotry...

...Having said that; I still ha- er, dislike oysters and slasher/torture films... ;)

Please bear with me; 'Hate' is a word that gets thrown around with too much abandon these days. We've lost the true context of the word. Applying hate to something when 'dislike' would be descriptive enough seems a bit hyperbolic to me. The true context of hate is something intense and corrosive, probably even tragic. In my opinion, hate belongs to the context of war, jealousy, violence and bigotry...

...Having said that; I still ha- er, dislike oysters and slasher/torture films... ;)

My wife and I like it. Recommend watching After Trek. You get insight from the people running the show on why ittook the initial direction it did.

That's interesting - I think before the Mirror universe - I was following it with a wait-and-see approach, but from how it resolved itself there, and especially about how its now progressing.. I've moved to positively liking it.

And so, I've been wondering, as they've had a chance to reject some of its previous darkness, and now they seem to be moving in a more traditional Trek-like atmosphere. So...

1) was that the plan all along, or2) have they taken criticism onboard and changed their intended path?

In either case, I'm happy they did so, but I just wonder which one it was.

My understanding is that the internal criticism at CBS of the first few episode was so intense that the production team hired 'canon editors' to ensure that the scripts had a 'Trek' feel; these editors had absolute power to reject or impose plot and character moments. These editors became involved in pre-production from episode 7 onwards.

And so, I've been wondering, as they've had a chance to reject some of its previous darkness, and now they seem to be moving in a more traditional Trek-like atmosphere. So...

1) was that the plan all along, or

There were reports on various Star Trek fan sites that the original plan was to go into the Mirror Universe in episode 3 or 4, but that internal debate resulted in giving more time to establish the characters first, so it was pushed out to Episode 9. This might have been fallout from Fuller's departure and the CBS 'canon police' intervention discussed by others.

My understanding is that the internal criticism at CBS of the first few episode was so intense that the production team hired 'canon editors' to ensure that the scripts had a 'Trek' feel; these editors had absolute power to reject or impose plot and character moments. These editors became involved in pre-production from episode 7 onwards.

I hadn't heard that before - do you know where this information comes from?

My understanding is that the internal criticism at CBS of the first few episode was so intense that the production team hired 'canon editors' to ensure that the scripts had a 'Trek' feel; these editors had absolute power to reject or impose plot and character moments. These editors became involved in pre-production from episode 7 onwards.

I hadn't heard that before - do you know where this information comes from?

By all reports the show was written in one block with Fuller already gone by the time the serious writing was happening. The main reason Fuller seems to have left is he wanted to make an anthology show and CBS didn’t want such a show, and there was only going to be one winner in that fight.

Anyway here’s an interview with Alex Kurtzman talking about season two.

I have to admit that I was not a big fan of the show when it started. But, it did grow on me, and I found myself looking forward to watching it each week. The characters really did come alive for me and I finally did fell myself caring about what happened to them.

Now, give me model kits of those two ships seen at the end of the last episode, and I will be very happy!

"While both ships are build to order, you’ll need to find all the Federation credits you can gt your hands on to add these starships to your fleet: the Shenzhou model is listed at an $8,000 cost, and the Discovery starship has a $9,000 price tag."

It's interesting sci-fi, but it's not star trek. Shame the concepts in this would have been better explored outside the trek franchise and both are diminished because of this. Gona watch it though because it's fun.

For how to do this right, see The Expanse.

Spoiler Alert - don't read a thread about a show if you don't want spoilers. :)

~~~

~~~

~~~

~~~

~~~

~~~

I'm not buying the "it's not Star Trek" just yet. It's clearly a post-scarcity society that is much more interested in exploration and science than war. But they aren't perfect and they stumbled into a war. Everyone is blaming Burnham's mutiny on starting the war but that's plain wrong (though the mutiny was a complete boneheaded move and she should be in prison for it.) The question ultimately is how do they navigate prosecuting a war?...

That's a very odd accusation to make, since the majority of season 1 *WAS* serialized. (only one episode - the Mudd "groundhog day" was really standalone) And season 2 may be as well.

After having seen the entire season, I have to say that I liked ST Discovery a lot more than I expected. My biggest problems are IMO with the final episode - how quickly the Klingon war is wrapped up (or is it?), and that final "cliffhanger". They really needed one or two more episodes to tie up things better.

Speaking specifically about All Access, Moonves talked about how the growth was driven by Star Trek, saying:

2017 was a breakout year for CBS All Access. We doubled our subs year over year and we kicked off our best month ever in January. We are driving this growth first and foremost with our content. This includes our big events like the NFL and the Grammys, more than 10,000 episodes of current and library programming, and our original series programming, lead by Star Trek: Discovery, which was obviously a runaway success.

Speaking specifically about All Access, Moonves talked about how the growth was driven by Star Trek, saying:

2017 was a breakout year for CBS All Access. We doubled our subs year over year and we kicked off our best month ever in January. We are driving this growth first and foremost with our content. This includes our big events like the NFL and the Grammys, more than 10,000 episodes of current and library programming, and our original series programming, lead by Star Trek: Discovery, which was obviously a runaway success.

Speaking specifically about All Access, Moonves talked about how the growth was driven by Star Trek, saying:

2017 was a breakout year for CBS All Access. We doubled our subs year over year and we kicked off our best month ever in January. We are driving this growth first and foremost with our content. This includes our big events like the NFL and the Grammys, more than 10,000 episodes of current and library programming, and our original series programming, lead by Star Trek: Discovery, which was obviously a runaway success.

Now if they could only us that money to build a better Apple TV app that doesn't lose track of where you stopped last and jumble the episode order.

I'll be back for Season 2, but then I might subscribe to it as part of Amazon Prime Video (you can add CBS as an add-on, just like HBO) instead, their app is much better.

Do you think those outside of the US who get it through Netflix are getting a better deal?

If they already subscribe to Netflix, of course. (And Netflix has a better user experience) Here in the US we had to subscribe to CBS all access, an extra $6 per month, to see Star Trek Discovery.

I can understand the logic from the CBS perspective but I can also understand the annoyance of the US viewer. Hence why they have green lit more shows to support it.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Bynaus on 03/06/2018 06:04 AM

~~~~Spoilers, obviously~~~~

I've finally found the time to (binge) watch DSC and I have to say - I like it. It really has been growing on me since the first episode. I like the story arcs, the Federation ship designs and uniforms, the development of the main characters, the twists and turns, and the return to "we are starfleet" values. And with Lorca being from the Mirror Universe, things make sense again. Still, there are some things I still don't like:

1) The "new" Klingons. Is there any in-universe way that could plausibly explain why they look different, talk different, behave different, and have these terribly ugly ships than at later (and earlier!) times? Are the "humanized" Klingons of other times the product of intermingling with humans, and the base for all this "remain Klingon!" stuff? I don't know. But I feel that this is the single largest stupidity of Discovery.

2) While I think its cool to have a "displacement drive" - really, spores? And why would someone like, say, Janeway not use it at later times (even if there are ethical issues) to bring her crew home?

3) I feel that apart from the "core" characters Burnham, Tyler, Tilly, Saru, Lorca (plus Georgiou), we don't really know the (bridge) crew and I am a bit surprised that no effort has been made so far to introduce them better (e.g., bring them on a landing party etc.).

4) Finally, I felt that the end of the war was too quick, too easy, that just felt like very lazy writing. Once they gave L'Rell the detonator for the device, why would that allow her to unite the Klingons (the easiest solution for, say, a head of a powerful house would be to just shoot her on the spot and be done with it, right? What if someone wanted to unite humanity the same way today? Would we all just hail the new emperor?) - and what would stop her, or them, from finishing the Federation while they still can? Why let your enemy, who just got a technology (the cloak-breaking algorithm) that destroys your strongest tactical advantage get back on their feet?